Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 21:05 On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > colp wrote: > > > [...] > > > Discussion with you is pointless. Go away. > > The point of discussion is to show the error in the contention that > Einstein's first postulate of SR is true. > > The first postulate isn't true because of the paradoxes which arise > when it is applied within the context of real relativistic effects > like time dilation. What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of relativity'? Paul Stowe
From: Edward Green on 10 Jul 2010 22:11 On Jul 10, 6:50 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:12 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <...> > >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." I appreciated that reference also. I can only wish the original author had said "highly isotropic" rather than "highly isotropy" <sic>, but maybe English wasn't his or her first language. That grammar-o makes the site look cranky, but I don't think it is. [I'm piggybacking on your post, since I lost Paul's original].
From: colp on 10 Jul 2010 22:15 On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 5:47 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > colp wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > Discussion with you is pointless. Go away. > > > The point of discussion is to show the error in the contention that > > Einstein's first postulate of SR is true. > > > The first postulate isn't true because of the paradoxes which arise > > when it is applied within the context of real relativistic effects > > like time dilation. > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > relativity'? The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature.
From: Edward Green on 10 Jul 2010 22:16 On Jul 10, 7:35 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: <...> > LLI has a profound effect on the permissible structure of > potential theories -- that's what makes it so powerful. > One of the major steps in the development of modern > QM was Wigner recognizing that the angular momentum states > are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group.... That sounds really important, and I hope some day to understand what it means. :-/ > Note that QM was then a NON-relativistic theory, and this > was a great big hint about how to generalize to a theory > that satisfies LLI, which became QED. > > Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 22:40
On Jul 10, 7:11 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 6:50 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2:12 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <...> > > >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." > > I appreciated that reference also. I can only wish the original author > had said "highly isotropic" rather than "highly isotropy" <sic>, but > maybe English wasn't his or her first language. That grammar-o makes > the site look cranky, but I don't think it is. > > [I'm piggybacking on your post, since I lost Paul's original]. Hi, another reference is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer Quote, "The cosmic microwave background fluctuations are extremely faint, only one part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 kelvin average temperature of the radiation field." and, IIRC the COBE instruments were designed to be sensitive to 10E-4 fluctuation causing quite a consternation when data was first received. It to quite a lot of data analysis to get the results. It was originally expected that those fluctuations would be on the order of 10E-3. Now 10E-5 is a variance in temperature of 0.000027 K or, conversely, a variance in c of 3,000 m/sec (if one assumes standard tomography protocol). It is silly on its face to claim that the CMBR does not illuminate the rest frame of our universe. Paul Stowe |