Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 9 Jul 2010 01:45 On Jul 8, 6:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Jul 8, 9:34 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >> > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> > > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > >> > > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > >> > > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > >> > > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > >> > > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > >> > > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > >> Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > The last time he elaborated he was pointing to the slight and I mean s- > > l-i-g-h-t (~1 part in 100,000) variations showing up in the background > > as 'multipoles'. > > Ah, the sarcastic dismissing of evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy. > > > He does not seem to understand that these have > > NOTHING to do with isotropy except in his imagined perfectly smooth > > universe. All compressible mediums have these, Earth's ocean and > > atmosphere for example. For an actual physical medium it would > > unnatural if these we not present... I see you totally ignored the rest of the post, typical, anti- scientific behavior. Hmmm, let's see, the ocean is a medium. The ocean has a rest frame (localized). But the map of sonic doppler (speed variations) is certain NOT! smoothly isotropic. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acoustic_tomography Paul Stowe
From: whoever on 9 Jul 2010 01:29 >"colp" wrote in message >news:a1afeb1b-5a5d-48c1-8b57-3095cb371a95(a)i16g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 9, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the >> K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > >If they are not synchronized in the K' frame, then the K frame becomes >the preferred frame of reference, No .. it doesn't . it is just the frame in which a given set of clocks in synchrnoised Try again > which contradicts Einstein's first > postulate. Nope. Nothing preferred about any particular frame >> WHAT is an implication of the first postulate? That they are also >> synchronized in K'? No. > >The implication is that if there is no preferred frame of reference >then predictions made in one inertial frame will be just as valid as >predictions made in any other inertial frame, They are > and if it is possible to >synchronize clocks in one inertial frame them it is possible to >synchronize clocks in any other inertial frame. Of course you can. Why do you think you can't. What you can't do is have them synchornised in any given pair of frames. You really need to learn what SR says before criticising it. And I notice you STILL do not have the honesty to respond to my posts. Afraid? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 9 Jul 2010 02:00 "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:c90bc660-d63a-4604-8e67-0678f89ca5b1(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 8, 10:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in >> 1928. > >That is indeed history. <shrug> > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference >> on it >> will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, and they >> have >> LOTS of structure; > >Playing down the insignificance of the dipole of CMBR due to it >leading to non-politically conclusions. <shrug> Tom isn't playing it down .. as he goes on to say >> ironically, they are invariably displayed in the dipole=0 >> frame (because otherwise the dipole would obscure the structure because >> the >> dipole is by far the largest multipole present). > >But still cannot ignore this experimental result. <shrug> What experimental result is that? >> Selecting the frame in which >> its dipole moment is zero cannot cancel all the other multipoles, and >> thus it is >> not isotropic in that frame. > >In another words, the Doppler shift in CMBR is indeed very >significant. Interesting .. yes. > It hints at unveiling the absolute frame of reference as > predicted by the MMX. <shrug> MMX was an experiment .. it doesn't predict anything .. rather its results are predicted (or not) BY theories. You clearly have no idea of how science works. There is nothing about the MMX results that require an absolute frame. Indeed, they ruled out a large class of theories that have an absolute frame. As always you have things backwards .. maybe that's why you shrug so much? The team that discovered this Doppler dipole in CMBR should be awarded with the Nobel Prize. <shrug> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:10 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> PaulStowewrote: >> > On Jul 8, 9:34 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> > > Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the >> >> > > ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had >> >> > > no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have >> >> > > put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be >> >> > > some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the >> >> > > CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. >> >> >> Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? >> >> > The last time he elaborated he was pointing to the slight and I mean s- >> > l-i-g-h-t (~1 part in 100,000) variations showing up in the background >> > as 'multipoles'. >> >> Ah, the sarcastic dismissing of evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy. >> >> > He does not seem to understand that these have >> > NOTHING to do with isotropy except in his imagined perfectly smooth >> > universe. All compressible mediums have these, Earth's ocean and >> > atmosphere for example. For an actual physical medium it would >> > unnatural if these we not present... > > I see you totally ignored the rest of the post, typical, anti- > scientific behavior. I ignored it because it is stupid. But thankfully you refined the stupidity to a nice dull edge for beating with. > Hmmm, let's see, the ocean is a medium. The > ocean has a rest frame (localized). But the map of sonic doppler > (speed variations) is certain NOT! smoothly isotropic. See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acoustic_tomography > > Paul Stowe As I have stated before, your understanding of physics has not progressed past 1905. Given the fact you are not 120 years old, I can only conclude that is because you only read material that fit in with what made sense to you as opposed to what explains observation. Your implication that the cosmic microwave background is a medium is rather...idiotic. But you've been posting idiotic things for years now, so I hardly expect that to be a barrier to further repetitions of the claim.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:11
whoever wrote: [..] I see wooby has came back from his nice long dignity recovery break to go back to his hobby of arguing from a position of ignorance as if he were an authority as opposed to a retired engineer with no training in the subject. |