"bz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
98.139...
"Josef Matz" wrote in news:46d7e3b6$0$4532$9b4e6d93
@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.


But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system. Maybe
the
only one !

It can't be very ideal if we appear to be "stationary" with respect to it
while we are moving at over 1000 km/s wrt the our galactic center and have
higher velocities wrt other galaxies.


Thats a good point. Now Hubble tells us that the average velocity of distant
matter proportional to distance.
Of course the background radiation there is isotropic too.
While we as distant observers cant see or measure the background there.

There in fact are two problems associated with that.
We do not see the actual position of the objects we view because of the
limited lightspeed c of homogene waves.
But right now good point you hinted on.
The just in time universe is different from what we see. The far away we see
back into past history of the universe. The background on what we see should
be isotropic too there but probably ad another bigger magnitude formerly.

Thats of course a cosmological question based on SR.
I am very shure that not only simple Lorentz transforms come out !


What are the chances that THEY see their being 'stationary' wrt the
background radiation, also?


I think yes.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"funk420" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
s.com...
On Aug 31, 5:47 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
"funk420" schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:1188547487.443060.105030@r23g2000p rd.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 31, 3:42 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny
this
point.

Not true. The Center of Earth frame is also a preferred frame
locally. These are simply inertial frames of reference, there is
nothing in Relativity theory that says no inertial frames of reference
exist or that these frames cannot be detected. The frame of CMBR
isotropy is just such a frame.

How that ? It rotates around the sund ! How can something uncelerated be
preferred ?
Maybe you prefer it for some reason but thats not whats meant here !



Well then what is meant here? Why do you prefer the reference frame
in which the CMBR dipole moment is zero? You are free to use any
coordinate system you choose.

We can also observe, detect, measure, and even in some circumstances
prefer, the rest frame of the closest star (Sol). I don't think
there's much observed acceleration of that either.


Further downward you bring the arguments for your questions. Also others
have good contributions.
Its going on transforms different from SR Lorentz transforms that in my
opinion are only valid locally
with repect to the absolute CMBR frame. The CMBR can be used to discuss on
the classes of universal
position transforms of an missing SR cosmology if you have no GR any more
for believing in.
Those transforms should answer such questions: If we would have all
positions of all galaxies in the universe.
Whats their positions then if we take one of the viewed galaxies lets say 5
Gigayears away as observation center ?




A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to
Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of
the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less
than
1000
km /s.

What is absolute about this velocity? You could also calculate our
motion with respect to the galactic center, with respect to nearby
stars, etc...

That is right. But nearby stars are rotating in the galactic arm and
spiraling around the galactic center.
Even the galactic center is in bound with the local group and influenced
by
other galaxies. So all this are no strict
inertial systems, only approximately for some effects.

But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system. Maybe
the
only one !



I think you have a good point here, in that because the CMBR comes
from so far away, it represents a larger system and is less dynamic.
However, one might equally define reference frame at rest with respect
to all observed galaxies of magnitude 30.

That might be even more stable over time and position but still not
perfectly ideal of course.



Right the properties of the CMBR are unique and can be used to define SR
cosmology.
My present status is that not all questions necessary for those transforms
can be answered right now.
So you still have a class of universes possible. The easiest point on an
infinite universe.

But ok good questions which i ask too.













Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the
laws
for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of
special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics.
Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of
SR.
SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

Isotropic radiation looks anisotropic when you are moving towards it.
That is handled well by special relativity.

I know that. The next answer to this post for example denies that in his
reply.
He says EM radiation is isotropic in all frames in contrary to what we
two
know from SR books.
It does not only look so as you say. Its a different reality. That is
what i
think.
And without an absolute frame you get Ghost Physics. Thats my point.







SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is
based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the
roomtime
concept of GR.

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery
transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example
within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the
near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost
instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that
the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would
say
that
today.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this
facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are
wrong.
The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the
second
postulate.

I think you'll find that no signal or energy is transferred
superluminally in the experiment you are referring to. Some people
suggest a signal can be passed superluminally using quantum
entanglement a la EPR but I'll believe it when I see it.

I have the complete theory for the Nimtz experiment. Explained as normal
reflection and refraction
with makroscopic index theory based on makroskopic electrodynamics.
Simple
theory.
Therefore i say Nimtz is classical optics nothing else and he measures
and
interpretes right.







And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the
experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high
scientific
moderated groups.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

I see a large amount of discussion of the experimental limits of
relativity theory, and not just in the newsgroups but also in
respected journals. You're right there are some elements of quantum
mechanics that seem to not fit in well with relativity but I think
there is some hope, all is not lost

I think GR is fully wrong and SR mistaken in many points.

"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
[Note that every "fact" you claim is either wrong or does not contradict
the predictions of relativity.]


Josef Matz wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

Not really. But you DEFINITELY have misconceptions about relativity.


The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

You are confused, and are using a PUN on "preferred frame". The CMBR
defines a "preferred frame" only in that it is at rest wrt the CMBR --
any object defines such a "preferred frame", and we on earth usually
"prefer" to use a frame at rest wrt the earth. SR denies a "preferred
frame" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in such a
frame. There is no logical connection between these two meanings, and
the presence of the CMBR does not invalidate relativity in any way.

wrt = "with respect to"


A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics.

Yes, such a frame can always be defined. Einstein did not "ignore" this
fact, he knew it was IRRELEVANT to the phenomena he was explaining.


Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.

Actually, COBE measured 390 km/s and WMAP measured 370 km/s. I don't
remember the errorbars, but I'm pretty sure they are on the order of 10
km/s or less. These are the speed of the sun wrt the CMBR; whether or
not that is "absolute velocity in space" depends on what one means by
that phrase (most modern physics don't ascribe any meaning to it at all).


Ok thats interesting. The revolution of the earth around the sun changes
this value during the year a little. In a sunbased coordinate system ok it
should be constant almost. To which fix star region does this absolute
velocity point?


Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws
for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of
special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy is
physical fact.

Again you are confused. Look up "Doppler shift", which completely
explains this. While there is no necessity for an object to emit thermal
radiation isotropically, if it does so in its rest frame, then in frames
moving wrt that frame the radiation will not be isotropic.


Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this? or what ghost?

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not
understandable.


You will understand my questions when you will not find any gravity waves in
empty space nowhere. Guv = 1.
Thats a direct conclusion of Nimtzs results.

Now SR is without cosmology or ? The absolute CMBR
together with the locally exact Hubble Law is able to deliver you the
cosmology relative to which SR might apply. But i doubt the Lorentz
transforms i think they will be replaced by something looking different or
only applicable relative to the absolute cosmic frame that exists.

The difference is now that Nimtz showed that all clocks in the universe are
synchronized via a cosmic time. Clocksrun slow than the cosmic time only
when they are moved via this absolute reference.

So ok thats my conclusions out of a simple optical experiment done by Nimtz.

Thanks to your contributions which are constructive. But you still believe
in GR. Therefore your other responses are just reflecting this.


SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.

I do not understand your non-standard term "roomtime"; I can guess what
"Eigentime" means (I assume it is a german-english *******ization
meaning "own time").

You are confusing "time" with "time coordinate". In relativity, each
object carries its own natural coordinate system, including its own time
coordinate. But this is not "time" in the way you try to use it.

Example: start with 100 watches, set them all running at
random times. Bring them all together and you have
PRECISELY the situation you describe -- there's no surprise
or contradiction in this at all.


The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery
transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves.

You are taking non-technical articles at face value and assuming they
reported accurately. They didn't. There is no actual detection of a
superluminal SIGNAL -- that is, no actual information was transferred
faster than c. At least this is the best I can infer from those
reports....


But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.

SR has been known to be incomplete for more than a century. That's why
Einstein started off on his decade-long trek to GR. GR has been known to
be incomplete for many decades (since the 1960s IIRC).


SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Hmmm. YOU haven't shown this in your article. But yes, SR is indeed
incomplete (it's not "wrong" in the usual sense, it's just that its
domain of applicability is limited).


And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.

Only if one uses a now non-standard meaning of "mass". In any case the
phenomena you refer to are accurately described by SR/GR, and so do not
refute either of them.


Relativity theory is wrong.

Not really. SR is known to be limited to non-gravitational situations.
And GR is known to be limited to non-quantum systems. But neither is
"wrong", it's just that they are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES with domains of
applicability that do not cover the entire universe of phenomena.


The present theory must be overworked.

And lots of intelligent people are working on that. Not in this
newsgroup, of course (:-)).


Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Sure they are! But in a moderated group, attempts at discussions that
display gross incompetence are generally rejected -- that's what
moderation is for. For instance, I would expect any competent physics
moderator to reject your post to which I am responding, for just that
reason.


Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

For you, perhaps. But not for physicists.


Tom Roberts

"Josef Matz" wrote in
:


"bz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
98.139...
"Josef Matz" wrote in
news:46d7e3b6$0$4532$9b4e6d93 @newsspool3.arcor-online.net:

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of
the fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.


But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system.
Maybe
the
only one !

It can't be very ideal if we appear to be "stationary" with respect to
it while we are moving at over 1000 km/s wrt the our galactic center
and have higher velocities wrt other galaxies.


Thats a good point. Now Hubble tells us that the average velocity of
distant matter proportional to distance.
Of course the background radiation there is isotropic too.


While we as distant observers cant see or measure the background there.

There in fact are two problems associated with that.
We do not see the actual position of the objects we view because of the
limited lightspeed c of homogene waves.
But right now good point you hinted on.
The just in time universe is different from what we see. The far away we
see back into past history of the universe. The background on what we
see should be isotropic too there but probably ad another bigger
magnitude formerly.

Thats of course a cosmological question based on SR.
I am very shure that not only simple Lorentz transforms come out !


What are the chances that THEY see their being 'stationary' wrt the
background radiation, also?


I think yes.

Then CMBR isotropy allows any observer to believe himself at the center of
the universe, which makes CMBR useless as an absolute reference.

It DOES give us an indication that the 'visible universe' is more or less
symmetrically distributed around us, implying that we know nothing about
what is past 'the edge' of our visible universe. Maybe the universe IS
riding on the back of the great turtle, and it really is 'turtles all the
way down' with each turtle riding on the back of a larger turtle.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"bz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
98.139...
"Josef Matz" wrote in
:


"bz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
98.139...
"Josef Matz" wrote in
news:46d7e3b6$0$4532$9b4e6d93 @newsspool3.arcor-online.net:

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of
the fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.


But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system.
Maybe
the
only one !

It can't be very ideal if we appear to be "stationary" with respect to
it while we are moving at over 1000 km/s wrt the our galactic center
and have higher velocities wrt other galaxies.


Thats a good point. Now Hubble tells us that the average velocity of
distant matter proportional to distance.
Of course the background radiation there is isotropic too.


While we as distant observers cant see or measure the background there.

There in fact are two problems associated with that.
We do not see the actual position of the objects we view because of the
limited lightspeed c of homogene waves.
But right now good point you hinted on.
The just in time universe is different from what we see. The far away we
see back into past history of the universe. The background on what we
see should be isotropic too there but probably ad another bigger
magnitude formerly.

Thats of course a cosmological question based on SR.
I am very shure that not only simple Lorentz transforms come out !


What are the chances that THEY see their being 'stationary' wrt the
background radiation, also?


I think yes.

Then CMBR isotropy allows any observer to believe himself at the center of
the universe, which makes CMBR useless as an absolute reference.


No. Each observer with velocity v=0 towards the local
CMBR has the right to say that he is a little preferred
towards one with not equal zero. Of course both can view themselves to be
center of the universe anyway. Each point is center independent on velocity.


It DOES give us an indication that the 'visible universe' is more or less
symmetrically distributed around us, implying that we know nothing about
what is past 'the edge' of our visible universe. Maybe the universe IS
riding on the back of the great turtle, and it really is 'turtles all the
way down' with each turtle riding on the back of a larger turtle.


right one can say so. The largest turtle the idealized CMBR. thats what i
think.

There might be another CMBR formed by neutrinos.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Koobee Wublee" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ps.com...
On Aug 31, 7:36 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Josef Matz wrote:

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

You are confused, and are using a PUN on "preferred frame". The CMBR
defines a "preferred frame" only in that it is at rest wrt the CMBR --
any object defines such a "preferred frame", and we on earth usually
"prefer" to use a frame at rest wrt the earth. SR denies a "preferred
frame" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in such a
frame. There is no logical connection between these two meanings, and
the presence of the CMBR does not invalidate relativity in any way.

wrt = "with respect to"

CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references. You and SR lost this one.

A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics.

Yes, such a frame can always be defined. Einstein did not "ignore" this
fact, he knew it was IRRELEVANT to the phenomena he was explaining.

You are still denying the experimental result. There goes all your
hypocritical advice on always betting on experimental results.

Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of
the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.

Actually, COBE measured 390 km/s and WMAP measured 370 km/s. I don't
remember the errorbars, but I'm pretty sure they are on the order of 10
km/s or less. These are the speed of the sun wrt the CMBR; whether or
not that is "absolute velocity in space" depends on what one means by
that phrase (most modern physics don't ascribe any meaning to it at
all).

The experimental fact is right in your face, and you are still denying
it.

Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws
for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of
special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy is
physical fact.

Again you are confused. Look up "Doppler shift", which completely
explains this. While there is no necessity for an object to emit thermal
radiation isotropically, if it does so in its rest frame, then in frames
moving wrt that frame the radiation will not be isotropic.

You have misunderstood Herr Matz. Please try again.

Hint: Think of the surprise find of CMBR dipole.

Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this? or what ghost?

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not
understandable.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether. Just because you as an
experimental physicist missed that very important point, it does not
mean all others have. shrug

SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.

I do not understand your non-standard term "roomtime"; I can guess what
"Eigentime" means (I assume it is a german-english *******ization
meaning "own time").

You are confusing "time" with "time coordinate". In relativity, each
object carries its own natural coordinate system, including its own time
coordinate. But this is not "time" in the way you try to use it.

Example: start with 100 watches, set them all running at
random times. Bring them all together and you have
PRECISELY the situation you describe -- there's no surprise
or contradiction in this at all.

Please allow me to translate. The bottom line is that relative
simultaneity is BS. shrug

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.

SR has been known to be incomplete for more than a century. That's why
Einstein started off on his decade-long trek to GR.

Let see. In that decade-long "trek", we witnessed Einstein "re-
discovered" the principle of equivalence after (I think) understanding
the Newtonian laws of gravity finally. Whew! Except this time,
Einstein was more than 300 years too late. Galileo beat him to it.
After observing how Newton was able to formulate the law of gravity by
watching how an object behaves under the gravitational influence of
the earth such as that falling apple, Einstein pictured himself as
that falling apple. Guess what. He got nowhere. GR was not derived
based on any of Einstein's stupid ideas. shrug

GR has been known to
be incomplete for many decades (since the 1960s IIRC).

Please elaborate on that. Are you referring to the Cosmological
constant? If so, you know I am going to have a lot of fun on this
one, don't you?

SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Hmmm. YOU haven't shown this in your article. But yes, SR is indeed
incomplete (it's not "wrong" in the usual sense, it's just that its
domain of applicability is limited).

Herr Matz is once again very correct. To resolve the twin's paradox
with time dilation, you must abandon the principle of relativity.
After all, the principle of relativity has been around for more than
300 years. Don't you think it is time for an "upgrade"?

And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.

Only if one uses a now non-standard meaning of "mass". In any case the
phenomena you refer to are accurately described by SR/GR, and so do not
refute either of them.

Except that energy-momentum tensor. From observation, mass is an
observer dependent parameter. To have an observer dependent quantity
affecting how space and time are curved should be a subject of
metaphysics not physics. shrug

Relativity theory is wrong.

Not really. SR is known to be limited to non-gravitational situations.
And GR is known to be limited to non-quantum systems. But neither is
"wrong", it's just that they are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES with domains of
applicability that do not cover the entire universe of phenomena.

They are no scientific theories. They cannot even resolve the
mathematical contradictions among themselves. shrug

The present theory must be overworked.

And lots of intelligent people are working on that. Not in this
newsgroup, of course (:-)).

Why are you so certain? Based on another of your guesses? Excuse
me. I meant postulates --- an ever celebrated guess.

Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high
scientific
moderated groups.

Sure they are! But in a moderated group, attempts at discussions that
display gross incompetence are generally rejected -- that's what
moderation is for. For instance, I would expect any competent physics
moderator to reject your post to which I am responding, for just that
reason.

Well, you are wrong again. sci.physics.research would filter out
personal attacks and trollish comments. That is good. However, all
attacks on my posts have been personal attacks and trollish comments.
Naturally, that newsgroup rejects every single one of my post. You
have double standards. If this is how you conduct your profession, I
cannot take your work seriously. You need to understand this.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

For you, perhaps. But not for physicists.

Let's see. There are very few physicists who even know how the
Einstein field equations are derived. This is a tragedy in science.
Herr Matz is correct once again. The current trend of theoretical
physics is walking on thin ice. shrug


I can sign this all could not have answered different. I see there is one
thinking like me.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references.

You assume facts not in evidence. Yes, the CMBR determines a local
dipole=0 frame. But there's no evidence that it is "absolute" or
"stationary" (using the usual meanings of those words). Indeed
measurements of distant galaxies interacting with the CMBR indicate the
galaxies are approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located,
and yet those galaxies have significant redshifts (i.e. they are moving
rapidly wrt us) -- this implies there is nothing "absolute" or
"stationary" about the CMBR at all.


The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether.

Hmmm. The physicists of the day concluded just the opposite. And today
we us no aether to explain this result. There is no "demands" here, but
yes, one can construct an aether theory which is in agreement with this
one result -- but if one includes ALL of the experiments, the "aether"
becomes experimentally unobservable and the theory becomes
experimentally indistinguishable from SR (or possibly the theory "lives
in the errorbars", which nobody has demonstrated is possible).


GR has been known to
be incomplete for many decades (since the 1960s IIRC).

Please elaborate on that.

The world we inhabit exhibits quantum phenomena, and GR is incompatible
with all current quantum theories.


To resolve the twin's paradox
with time dilation, you must abandon the principle of relativity.

Nonsense. You STILL don't understand SR. shrug


Tom Roberts

Josef Matz wrote:
"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Actually, COBE measured 390 km/s and WMAP measured 370 km/s. I don't
remember the errorbars, but I'm pretty sure they are on the order of 10
km/s or less. These are the speed of the sun wrt the CMBR; whether or
not that is "absolute velocity in space" depends on what one means by
that phrase (most modern physics don't ascribe any meaning to it at all).

To which fix star region does this absolute
velocity point?

I don't know. Look it up (scholar.google.com is your friend).


You will understand my questions when you will not find any gravity waves in
empty space nowhere. Guv = 1.

Hmmm. Guv is never equal to 1 -- that simply is not possible: it does
not satisfy the energy condition of GR, and I believe it does not
satisfy the Bianchi identities (but have not checked).


Thats a direct conclusion of Nimtzs results.

Nonsense. You REALLY do not understand what Nimtz did, and what he
DIDN'T do.


Now SR is without cosmology or ?

SR is weofully inadequate to address cosmological issues.


The absolute CMBR [...]

The CMBR is not "absolute" in any useful sense of the word -- see my
recent post in this thread.


The difference is now that Nimtz showed that all clocks in the universe are
synchronized via a cosmic time.

He showed no such thing. This is manifestly disproved by the different
synchronization fo the GPS satellite clocks.


Now Hubble tells us that the average velocity of distant
matter proportional to distance.

Yes, approximately.


Of course the background radiation there is isotropic too.

Yes, with respect to that distant matter, not with respect to us.


While we as distant observers cant see or measure the background there.

Yes, the interaction of the CMBR with distant galaxies has been observed
[sorry, I have no references].


Thats of course a cosmological question based on SR.

SR is woefully inadequate to address cosmological issues.


Tom Roberts

On 1 Sept, 19:14, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references.

You assume facts not in evidence. Yes, the CMBR determines a local
dipole=0 frame. But there's no evidence that it is "absolute" or
"stationary" (using the usual meanings of those words). Indeed
measurements of distant galaxies interacting with the CMBR indicate the
galaxies are approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located,
and yet those galaxies have significant redshifts (i.e. they are moving
rapidly wrt us) -- this implies there is nothing "absolute" or
"stationary" about the CMBR at all.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether.

Hmmm. The physicists of the day concluded just the opposite. And today
we us no aether to explain this result. There is no "demands" here, but
yes, one can construct an aether theory which is in agreement with this
one result -- but if one includes ALL of the experiments, the "aether"
becomes experimentally unobservable and the theory becomes
experimentally indistinguishable from SR....

Hmmmm Roberts Roberts hmmmm shrug shrug. Which experiments Roberts
Roberts will make the emission theory of light, obviously consistent
with the Michelson-Morley experiment as Norton and Hoffmann confirm
below, "experimentally indistinguishable from SR"?

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 1, 10:14 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references.

You assume facts not in evidence.

No, this is no assumption. CMBR dipole proves there is an absolute
stationary frame of reference. The requirement to have the laws of
physics invariant from each frame of references to another is a very
fundamental principle. shrug

Yes, the CMBR determines a local
dipole=0 frame. But there's no evidence that it is "absolute" or
"stationary" (using the usual meanings of those words).

Well, Peter rejected Christ three times. How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

Indeed
measurements of distant galaxies interacting with the CMBR indicate the
galaxies are approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located,

Oh, this is the first time I have heard of this nonsense. You must be
desperate.

and yet those galaxies have significant redshifts (i.e. they are moving
rapidly wrt us) -- this implies there is nothing "absolute" or
"stationary" about the CMBR at all.

You don't make any sense at all.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether.

Hmmm. The physicists of the day concluded just the opposite.

Not really. The Voigt transform was based on an earlier experiment of
Michelson which was essentially the same as the Michelson-Morley
experiment except that the latter had much higher degree of accuracy.
The Voigt transform must be referenced to the very stationary
background of the Aether. The Lorentz transform is just a
modification of the Voigt transform to satisfy the principle of
relativity which then allows the insignificance of the absolute frame
of reference.

And today we us no aether to explain this result.

But you cannot explain why the speed of light is what the value it
is. shrug

There is no "demands" here, but
yes, one can construct an aether theory which is in agreement with this
one result -- but if one includes ALL of the experiments, the "aether"
becomes experimentally unobservable and the theory becomes
experimentally indistinguishable from SR (or possibly the theory "lives
in the errorbars", which nobody has demonstrated is possible).

What if the Lorentz transform is wrong which it must be because it
manifests the absurdity of the twin's paradox.

The world we inhabit exhibits quantum phenomena, and GR is incompatible
with all current quantum theories.

Because SR/GR both rejects the Aether. shrug

To resolve the twin's paradox
with time dilation, you must abandon the principle of relativity.

Nonsense. You STILL don't understand SR. shrug

Apparently you have not understood the Lorentz transform to see the
very existence of the twin's paradox. sigh