Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 18:54 On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that you have Special Insight. Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three dimensional space simultaneously?" And the answer to that is, "Easily." A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture that is similar to this. An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push the electric field out of the way either. So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 9 Jul 2010 19:17 On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space. > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that > you have Special Insight. > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*, > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three > dimensional space simultaneously?" > > And the answer to that is, "Easily." > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture > that is similar to this. > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together the mass of the volume increases. As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not continually increasing. Your analogy is incorrect. The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark matter. Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back. Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push > the electric field out of the way either. > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says. > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Jul 2010 19:33 Edward Green wrote: > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? An extension to SR that has two invariant quantities: the speed c and the Planck length (not h). The interesting thing is that to achieve this is non-trivial and involves quantum groups in a way not clear to me; I have not had time to investigate this.... Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 19:37 PD wrote: [...] > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon. > Quit whoring for attention. He is stupid *and* boring, thus killfiled.
From: Paul Stowe on 9 Jul 2010 20:12
On Jul 9, 2:30 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> 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 PaulStowe, 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. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec23.html Quote, "The CMB is highly isotropy, uniform to better than 1 part in 100,000. Any deviations from uniformity are measuring the fluctuations that grew by gravitational instability into galaxies and clusters of galaxies." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9709058 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs-Wolfe_effect Paul Stowe > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"? |