Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 9 Jul 2010 17:30 On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Edward Green 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? > > Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in 1928.. > > 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; 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). 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. Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 -- however exactly that is quantified. BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"?
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 17:57 Edward Green wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Edward Green 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? >> >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in >> 1928. >> >> 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; 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). 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. > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > -- however exactly that is quantified. Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon things. > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 18:04 On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Edward Green wrote: > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Edward Green 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? > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > >> 1928. > > >> 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; 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). 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. > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > things. > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a moving particle has?
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 18:14 On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> Edward Green 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? > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > >> 1928. > > > >> 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; 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). 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. > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > things. > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > moving particle has? Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. Quit whoring for attention.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 18:25
On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >> Edward Green 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? > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in > > > >> 1928. > > > > >> 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; 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). 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. > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact, > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon > > > things. > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations. > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a > > moving particle has? > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > Quit whoring for attention. How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously? They don't. Dark matter is displaced by matter. |