Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.

No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.


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).

How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

None. But I do reject your insistence that this result is somehow
magically "absolute" and "stationary".

The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.


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 should get out more. LEARN something. Don't just keep repeating your
same mistakes. Then you'll learn it is not "nonsense".


And today we us no aether to explain [the MMX] result.

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

The local geometry of spacetime determines it.


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

Counterfactual claims have no standing. The "twin's paradox" has been
MEASURED in the laboratory, and the predictions of SR are confirmed. The
"twin's paradox" is not "absurd", it is part of the world we inhabit. No
matter how often you deny it, you still must live with it. shrug


Tom Roberts

On 4 Sept, 17:23, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
The "twin's paradox" has been
MEASURED in the laboratory, and the predictions of SR are confirmed. The
"twin's paradox" is not "absurd", it is part of the world we inhabit. No
matter how often you deny it, you still must live with it. shrug

Tom Roberts

Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts. He lives in Einstein zombie world
- where else could he go? Einstein zombie world is the magic world
where your brothers magicians Roberts Roberts regularly trap long
trains inside short tunnels and also long poles inside short barns:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...b670c37e719f9?

You do not seem to accept this trapping Roberts Roberts but that is
because you are a magician of a different kind: you are an expert on
the twin paradox, not on trapping long trains inside short tunnels and
also long poles inside short barns. In other words Roberts Roberts,
you know why the travelling twin returns younger but do not know how
long the train (pole) trapped inside the short tunnel (barn) is. Why
does the travelling twin return younger Roberts Roberts? Is this due
to the acceleration the travelling twin experiences or does the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin have nothing to do with
acceleration? What did Einstein say in 1918 Roberts Roberts? Was he
right? Einstein zombie world is waiting for your explanation Roberts
Roberts. YOU are the Albert Einstein of our generation, not Hawking.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 4, 7:23 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

No, this is no assumption. CMBR dipole proves there is an absolute
stationary frame of reference.

No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.

How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

None. But I do reject your insistence that this result is somehow
magically "absolute" and "stationary".

The absolute stationary frame is found, and you are still rejecting
what your observation is telling you. shrug

The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.

There is nothing magical about this absolute frame. The laws of
physics still apply every where and every when including the absolute
frame. shrug

Oh, this is the first time I have heard of this nonsense.

You should get out more. LEARN something. Don't just keep repeating your
same mistakes. Then you'll learn it is not "nonsense".

I have never heard of the nonsense about distant galaxies having a
large red shift but stationary with CMBR.

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

The local geometry of spacetime determines it.

This is very handwaving. The speed of light in vacuum is determined
by the permittivity and the permeability in free space. There is
nothing in the geometry of spacetime that specifically affects these
parameters. Do you want to build a case out of the gravitational time
dilation?

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

Counterfactual claims have no standing. The "twin's paradox" has been
MEASURED in the laboratory, and the predictions of SR are confirmed.

The claim of proving the validity of twin's paradox can only be
false. I suggest you to plead guilty for spreading this
counterfactual claim.

The
"twin's paradox" is not "absurd", it is part of the world we inhabit.

Were you intoxicated when you wrote this post?

No
matter how often you deny it, you still must live with it. shrug

Do you realize we do not inhabit in a world of chaos where the laws of
physics are different every where and every when? The laws of physics
in this universe must not allow the twin's paradox.

How many insane folks would stand with Professor Roberts on this case?

On Sep 4, 11:49 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:23 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
No, this is no assumption. CMBR dipole proves there is an absolute
stationary frame of reference.

No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.

How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

None. But I do reject your insistence that this result is somehow
magically "absolute" and "stationary".

The absolute stationary frame is found, and you are still rejecting
what your observation is telling you. shrug

It isn't absolute or stationary because we are moving with respect to
it. Boy, it'd be pretty funny if you didn't know that the varying
probe's motion, along with the Earth's motion about the Sun, the Sun's
motion about the galactic plane

You should probably spend a few minutes thinking about why the entire
scientific community doesn't think the CMBR constitutes a valid
"absolute frame".


The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.

There is nothing magical about this absolute frame. The laws of
physics still apply every where and every when including the absolute
frame. shrug

Then how is it absolute? Because you say so?


Oh, this is the first time I have heard of this nonsense.

You should get out more. LEARN something. Don't just keep repeating your
same mistakes. Then you'll learn it is not "nonsense".

I have never heard of the nonsense about distant galaxies having a
large red shift but stationary with CMBR.

For the same reason you don't understand relativity, quantum theory,
or classical mechanics: You have never studied cosmology so the
obvious facts of the art evade you.


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

The local geometry of spacetime determines it.

This is very handwaving. The speed of light in vacuum is determined
by the permittivity and the permeability in free space. There is
nothing in the geometry of spacetime that specifically affects these
parameters. Do you want to build a case out of the gravitational time
dilation?

Why are you applying an idea that is specific to Maxwell's equations
on a flat manifold to an arbitrary manifold?

It isn't terribly complicated - the local speed of light is c by
assumption but the global speed of light might not be c.


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

Counterfactual claims have no standing. The "twin's paradox" has been
MEASURED in the laboratory, and the predictions of SR are confirmed.

The claim of proving the validity of twin's paradox can only be
false. I suggest you to plead guilty for spreading this
counterfactual claim.

The
"twin's paradox" is not "absurd", it is part of the world we inhabit.

Were you intoxicated when you wrote this post?

No
matter how often you deny it, you still must live with it. shrug

Do you realize we do not inhabit in a world of chaos where the laws of
physics are different every where and every when? The laws of physics
in this universe must not allow the twin's paradox.

The twins paradox isn't a paradox. It has served its' purpose by
becoming a teaching example and a filter for the stupid. The twins
paradox has been explained to you time after time and you still /don't
get it/.


How many insane folks would stand with Professor Roberts on this case?

You are rather quick to criticize, aren't you? You post under a
pseudonym and you have no actual qualifications of your own. You can't
even write down a simple definition for the Riemann tensor without
****ing it up five ways from Sunday.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Roberts"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.


Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.

No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.


But yes you have a stationary frame set together with the Hubble Law v =
r/t where r is radius from a preferred CMBR obsderever and t the universal
time which conmnects all this frames. Maybe the Hubbe Law must be
corrected for large distances i dont know. But that would be the subject of
a new special relativistic cosmology.

I do not understand why you refute this. In this frame Nimtz is possible and
compatible since all this local connected frames have the same time right
now.

Probably nothing changes against special relativity you just
use v=r/t the Hubble Law in the Gamma - factors.
A stiff frame indeed.


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).

How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

None. But I do reject your insistence that this result is somehow
magically "absolute" and "stationary".

The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.


Locally at every time point yes. But thats no ideal inertial frame.


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 should get out more. LEARN something. Don't just keep repeating your
same mistakes. Then you'll learn it is not "nonsense".


Right it is so almost. It must be so because we are in a similar position
wrt. the CMBR.


And today we us no aether to explain [the MMX] result.

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

The local geometry of spacetime determines it.


Its a nature constant (c) or ?


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

Counterfactual claims have no standing. The "twin's paradox" has been
MEASURED in the laboratory, and the predictions of SR are confirmed. The
"twin's paradox" is not "absurd", it is part of the world we inhabit. No
matter how often you deny it, you still must live with it. shrug


Maybe you are right. I also fight with this but think it must be correct.

Take 100 clocks which are synchronized at a point
and move them about differently but they all meet in a second point. All
times are different due to the different movements (velocities). When the
masses meet again and when they leave whe photograph the clocks.
Now we go into another reference frame and observe the same thing with the
same 1000 masses from there.
We photograph the clocks when they start from a point
(they show same time as in the first frame of reference or ? And we
photgraph them when they come together in
the point in the second frame. When we take a photograph out of the second
frame the photograph
should show the same clock times as photographed from frame 1. Different
times but not depend on the relativ velocity of the two frames.

I dont know if this is so in SR. If not we have no
objective development in SR and SR would be wrong.

I try to find out myself but dont know the answer yet.
But i think SR does it and therefore might be good theory.
I hope for SR.

Josef



Tom Roberts

Josef Matz wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.
No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.

But yes you have a stationary frame set together with the Hubble Law v =
r/t where r is radius from a preferred CMBR obsderever and t the universal
time which conmnects all this frames. Maybe the Hubbe Law must be
corrected for large distances i dont know. But that would be the subject of
a new special relativistic cosmology.

Calling it "stationary" does not make it so. Calling someone a
"preferred CMBR observer" does not make them "preferred" for anything
except observing the CMBR -- not very useful, and not at all what people
normally mean by "absolute frame" or "stationary frame".


I do not understand why you refute this.

Because the CMBR simply does not determine a global frame at all --
distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from use but are essentially at
rest relative to their local CMBR.

[This is, of course, fully consistent with the FRW manifolds
that are the basis of big bang cosmologies.]


In this frame Nimtz is possible and
compatible since all this local connected frames have the same time right
now.

Nimtz's results have nothing whatsoever to do with the CMBR, or
"absolute frames", or anything else being discussed here.


The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.

Locally at every time point yes. But thats no ideal inertial frame.

Right. It's no "frame" at all. If you understand this here, why don't
you understand the same thing above?


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Josef Matz wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
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.
No, it quite clearly does not do so. Observations of the CMBR show it
determines a LOCAL dipole=0 frame. No more.

But yes you have a stationary frame set together with the Hubble Law v
=
r/t where r is radius from a preferred CMBR obsderever and t the
universal
time which conmnects all this frames. Maybe the Hubbe Law must be
corrected for large distances i dont know. But that would be the subject
of
a new special relativistic cosmology.

Calling it "stationary" does not make it so. Calling someone a
"preferred CMBR observer" does not make them "preferred" for anything
except observing the CMBR -- not very useful, and not at all what people
normally mean by "absolute frame" or "stationary frame".


Its for each universal time point stationary yes. The dynamics is easy. But
its not SR ( which does not have
an own cosmology ) and it is not GR (cant be stationary at all because
global time not everywhere possible.


By the way SR inertial frames have everywhere the same time or ? They are
stationary too ! But they do not reflect
the universe.


I do not understand why you refute this.

Because the CMBR simply does not determine a global frame at all --
distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from use but are essentially at
rest relative to their local CMBR.


Yes thats it we agree on this. You only do not see that what is observed for
the past for distant
galaxies must be valid also at the present. But thats your problem not mine.


[This is, of course, fully consistent with the FRW manifolds
that are the basis of big bang cosmologies.]


In this frame Nimtz is possible and
compatible since all this local connected frames have the same time
right
now.

Nimtz's results have nothing whatsoever to do with the CMBR, or
"absolute frames", or anything else being discussed here.


But they have something to do with instant signal transfer. Not compatible
with GRs instationary
inconsistent times and only consistent with SR if you have a generalized SR
cosmology
what indeed is not pure SR and a base where all times are connected.

You simply want not see that the actual universe has everywhere the same
time which is about 14 Gigayears.

And ok you have no difficulties to accept that the local CMBR frame can be
taken as a rather good teference frame for local SR
here on earth or ? With this frame you should get no much differences as
with a sun based frame.


The CMBR here and now determining a rest frame (dipole=0 frame) here
and
now is no different from the earth doing the same.

Locally at every time point yes. But thats no ideal inertial frame.

Right. It's no "frame" at all. If you understand this here, why don't
you understand the same thing above?


The earth revolutes daily and cycles around the sun and...
but the univere just expands locally everywhere with the same velocity in
the present ( not in the past ! )

You must accept that this stationary frame is not compatible with GR. Its an
alternative to GR in point of cosmology.
This cosmology is different from GR cosmology. You may ask for what do we
need it ? We have GR !
But if you find no gravity waves with LIGO passing empty space tzhen GR is
wrong or ?
And if you must throw away GR you must replace it by something else. Thats
why we discuss it.


Josef



Tom Roberts