CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Albertito on 8 Sep 2009 08:48 On Sep 8, 1:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Albertito" <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e18d05b1-bd58-4d12-8f0a-9b68f49997e5(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 8, 12:07 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > >> On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > >> > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth > >> > > ------------------------------------------ > > >> > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation > >> > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of > >> > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. > >> > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) > > >> > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest > >> > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine > >> > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: > >> > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction > >> > > of the constellation Virgo. > >> > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) > > >> > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. > >> > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) > > >> > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, > >> > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. > >> > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > >> > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? > > >> > > Marcel Luttgens > > >> > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. You > >> > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either > >> > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. > > >> > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in > >> > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion > >> > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative to > >> > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire > >> > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and > >> > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. > > >> > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B > >> > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is > >> > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, > >> > but B is not in motion relative to A. > > >> No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative > >> to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that > >> the CMBR moves wrt A. > > >> Marcel Luttgens > > >> > When you say that you don't believe the CMBR is in motion relative to > >> > the earth, I believe you think this because you somehow believe the > >> > CMBR is fixed and stationary in some absolute sense and so can't be in > >> > any kind of motion, relative or not. I don't know where you got this > >> > idea. > > >> > PD > > > You are right Marcel. CMBR conforms an absolute frame > > of reference in the sense that the sources that emitted > > those CMBR photons were so distant from us, that their > > respective angular positions have not changed a bit since > > the emission events to the absoption ones. > > It is a frame, but nothing absolute about it. The physics of that frame is > the same as any other. It is a significant frame (especially to > astronomers) > > > I can rember a wonderful thread started by Henri Wilson > > in this very forum called "Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?" > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/82337144cdc... > > Oh gawd, not Henry. He has some weird ideas, and an amazing lack of > understanding about physics, and ability to post untruths with apparently no > remorse. So, you do not know what an absolute frame of reference is? I'll give you some notions about it. Trace an angular position in your nightsky. Now, try to guess some distant source of light in that very angular position that emitted a photon towards you. The more distant the source was, the better for your fixed frame. So, infinite distant sources define an absolute frame of reference. Finite but highly distant sources define a quasi-absolute frame of reference. What has the CMBR of special? The laws of physiscs in a lab at rest in that frame would look simpler. Example, an atomic clock would tick at the fastest rate if it is at rest in that CMBR frame (dipole=0)
From: PD on 8 Sep 2009 08:52 On Sep 8, 5:53 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Actually, what I believe is what's been recorded from experiment. Some of that is mentioned in textbooks. But it's really hard to argue with what you see with your own two eyes. > 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: PD on 8 Sep 2009 08:53 On Sep 8, 6:07 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation > > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of > > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. > > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) > > > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest > > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine > > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: > > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction > > > of the constellation Virgo. > > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) > > > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. > > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) > > > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, > > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. > > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? > > > > Marcel Luttgens > > > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. You > > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either > > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. > > > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in > > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion > > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative to > > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire > > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and > > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. > > > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B > > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is > > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, > > but B is not in motion relative to A. > > No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative > to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that > the CMBR moves wrt A. Take it slow, Marcel, and substitute "B" for "CMBR". > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > > When you say that you don't believe the CMBR is in motion relative to > > the earth, I believe you think this because you somehow believe the > > CMBR is fixed and stationary in some absolute sense and so can't be in > > any kind of motion, relative or not. I don't know where you got this > > idea. > > > PD > >
From: PD on 8 Sep 2009 08:54 On Sep 8, 6:23 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 8, 12:07 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation > > > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of > > > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. > > > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) > > > > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest > > > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine > > > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: > > > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction > > > > of the constellation Virgo. > > > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) > > > > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. > > > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) > > > > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, > > > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. > > > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > > > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? > > > > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. You > > > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either > > > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. > > > > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in > > > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion > > > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative to > > > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire > > > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and > > > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. > > > > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B > > > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is > > > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, > > > but B is not in motion relative to A. > > > No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative > > to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that > > the CMBR moves wrt A. > > > Marcel Luttgens > > > > When you say that you don't believe the CMBR is in motion relative to > > > the earth, I believe you think this because you somehow believe the > > > CMBR is fixed and stationary in some absolute sense and so can't be in > > > any kind of motion, relative or not. I don't know where you got this > > > idea. > > > > PD > > You are right Marcel. CMBR conforms an absolute frame > of reference in the sense that the sources that emitted > those CMBR photons were so distant from us, that their > respective angular positions have not changed a bit since > the emission events to the absoption ones. And this meets what definition of "absolute frame" exactly? Oh, the one you just made up? > > I can rember a wonderful thread started by Henri Wilson > in this very forum called "Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?"http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/82337144cdc... > > Thanks
From: PD on 8 Sep 2009 08:55
On Sep 8, 7:48 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 8, 1:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Albertito" <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e18d05b1-bd58-4d12-8f0a-9b68f49997e5(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Sep 8, 12:07 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > >> On 7 sep, 20:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Sep 6, 7:53 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > > > >> > > CMBR's motion wrt the Earth > > >> > > ------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation > > >> > > (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of > > >> > > electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. > > >> > > (fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR) > > > >> > > By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest > > >> > > part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine > > >> > > the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: > > >> > > the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction > > >> > > of the constellation Virgo. > > >> > > (fromhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm) > > > >> > > It (the CMBR) does move with respect to an object. > > >> > > (from PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>, Sep 5, 2009) > > > >> > > Clearly, the Earth moves wrt the CMBR. According to SR, > > >> > > reciprocally, the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. > > >> > > Can somebody explain how, physically, an electromagnetic > > >> > > radiation filling the universe can move relative to the Earth? > > > >> > > Marcel Luttgens > > > >> > I think you are confused about what relative motion means, Marcel. You > > >> > have in your head that motion is an absolute statement, as in either > > >> > something is in motion or it's not. This is not the case. > > > >> > If you have car and a stop sign and a fire hydrant, the car is in > > >> > motion relative to the stop sign, and the stop sign is in motion > > >> > relative to the car, and the fire hydrant is not in motion relative to > > >> > the stop sign, and the stop sign is not in relative to the fire > > >> > hydrant, and the fire hydrant is in motion relative to the car, and > > >> > the car is in motion relative to the fire hydrant. > > > >> > I think you have it in your head that if you have two objects A and B > > >> > and they are in relative motion, then this means that one of them is > > >> > in motion and the other is not. As in, A is in motion relative to B, > > >> > but B is not in motion relative to A. > > > >> No, what I have in my head is that if A is in motion relative > > >> to the CMBR, it is impossible to physically demonstrate that > > >> the CMBR moves wrt A. > > > >> Marcel Luttgens > > > >> > When you say that you don't believe the CMBR is in motion relative to > > >> > the earth, I believe you think this because you somehow believe the > > >> > CMBR is fixed and stationary in some absolute sense and so can't be in > > >> > any kind of motion, relative or not. I don't know where you got this > > >> > idea. > > > >> > PD > > > > You are right Marcel. CMBR conforms an absolute frame > > > of reference in the sense that the sources that emitted > > > those CMBR photons were so distant from us, that their > > > respective angular positions have not changed a bit since > > > the emission events to the absoption ones. > > > It is a frame, but nothing absolute about it. The physics of that frame is > > the same as any other. It is a significant frame (especially to > > astronomers) > > > > I can rember a wonderful thread started by Henri Wilson > > > in this very forum called "Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?" > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/82337144cdc.... > > > Oh gawd, not Henry. He has some weird ideas, and an amazing lack of > > understanding about physics, and ability to post untruths with apparently no > > remorse. > > So, you do not know what an absolute frame of reference is? > I'll give you some notions about it. Trace an angular position > in your nightsky. Now, try to guess some distant source of > light in that very angular position that emitted a photon > towards you. The more distant the source was, the better > for your fixed frame. So, infinite distant sources define > an absolute frame of reference. I take it this is YOUR private definition of "absolute frame". What other private definitions for other physics terms do you have? > Finite but highly distant > sources define a quasi-absolute frame of reference. > What has the CMBR of special? The laws of physiscs in > a lab at rest in that frame would look simpler. Example, > an atomic clock would tick at the fastest rate if it is at > rest in that CMBR frame (dipole=0) |