CBR Rest Frame, Special Relativity and the Twin Paradox
JamesA
background radiatiion (CBR) doppler shift measurements have any implications
for special relativity and the twin paradox?
Is it not possible to accelerate away from our solar system in a space ship,
against our motion relative to the CBR rest frame, and thus slow down
relative to the CBR rest frame?
Is it not possible for clocks run faster on earth (ignoring the effects of
gravity), than on the space ship if it slows down relative to the CBR rest
frame?
And is it not possible to make measurements to test this, so that people can
debate the results of real experiments rather than waffle on and on about
thought eperiements and the uncertain knowledge that they provide. Perhaps
the velocity resolution provided by CBR doppler shift measurements will
never be good enough for a practical experiment, oh well more endless
waffle.........
JamesA
Vern
I am under the impression that a CMBR frame would be local to this galaxy,
not universal. What kind of experiment would you conduct? None of the
celestial bodies are travelling fast enough relative to the CMBR to show
time dilation, are they? Although, on the other hand, I did read the
following in a book discussing Aether theory:
"experimenters from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory made a cosmic
speedometer for the Earth. They found that the intensity of the 3K radio
energy was strongest in the direction of the constellation Leo.
Considering the motion of the Earth around the Sun, and of the Sun
in the Milky Way, it turns out that the Milky Way is cruising through the
Universe at 1/500 of the speed of light (400 miles a second) in that
direction."
Vern
Eric Prebys
JamesA wrote:
>
> Does the existance of the preferred reference frame identified from cosmic
> background radiatiion (CBR) doppler shift measurements have any implications
> for special relativity and the twin paradox?
>
That's an *extremely* good question, and by the way thanks for posting
as a question, rather than a pronouncement. Civility is often in short
supply on this NG.
First, we should understand clearly what is meant by our velocity
relative to CMB "rest frame", since "rest frame" is weird concept where
light is involved. All the light is still moving at "c" in our frame,
or at least there is no evidence it is not.
A slight anisotropy was seen in the "temperature" of the cosmic
black body radiation; ignoring the small scale anisotropy, the average
CMBR coming from one particular direction is slightly hotter
(more blue-shifted) than the CMBR coming
from the opposite direction. Now if you ask yourself "How fast would
I have to move toward the cooler CMB so that the doppler shift
made everything isotropic?", the answer is about 600 km/s,
so we interpret a frame moving at 600 km/s, toward the "cool" CMB
as the CMB "rest frame". (see, e.g.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html
for some details)
If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an excellent
candidate. Now let's see some implications for SR...
This velocity of 600 km/s is more than 100 times the velocity of
the Earth relative to the Sun, so if this really represented the
frame relative to which light moved it would have stuck out like
a sore thumb in the original Michelson-Morely experiment, and
later more accurate encarnations, but that's only the beginning.
This velocity is a whopping 2E-3*c! That means that if this *were* the
absolute "light frame", then the observed velocity of light would
change by this amount depending on the direction it was going
relative to our "absolute" direction of motion. If we tried to
calculate propagation delays using our nominal speed of light,
they would be off by this factor. Now GPS satellites orbit
at an altitude of roughly 20,000 km, so this would result in a
positional error of ~40 km, which would vary according to the
time of day.
So if you define the CMB background as the absolute rest frame,
then you've validated the frame independence of "c" to a very high
degree!!
You can't have any velocity be independent of frame without
giving up the immutability of time, and that is how the rest of
SR falls into place.
> Is it not possible to accelerate away from our solar system in a space ship,
> against our motion relative to the CBR rest frame, and thus slow down
> relative to the CBR rest frame?
>
> Is it not possible for clocks run faster on earth (ignoring the effects of
> gravity), than on the space ship if it slows down relative to the CBR rest
> frame?
>
No macroscopic man-made object has even approached these velocities.
That doesn't become *easier* because of the CMB.
> And is it not possible to make measurements to test this, so that people can
> debate the results of real experiments rather than waffle on and on about
> thought eperiements and the uncertain knowledge that they provide. Perhaps
> the velocity resolution provided by CBR doppler shift measurements will
> never be good enough for a practical experiment, oh well more endless
> waffle.........
Contrary to the impression you may get on this newsgroup, there are
plenty of "real" experiments validating relativity and time dilation.
See http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html for a nice
summary.
For tests involving macroscopic clock, see e.g.
J. Haefele, Science Vol. 177 p. 166 - 170 (1972): which used
clocks on planes
but precision tests involve the lifetimes of subatomic particles.
For a good example see
Bailey et al., Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) p. 301.
It measured the increase in the lifetime of muons in a storage
ring. Although SR is vital to particle physics, this is the most
accurate test I know of SR *per se*, in that it directly measured
the velocity of the particles AND their lifetimes, AND they
came back to the point of origin, so it really was the "Twin
Paradox" in every way. Rather than measure tiny effects, the lifetime
was increased by a factor of 29.3 (!!), and the dependence on
the velocity was verified with SR predictions to 2E-3 at 95% c.l.
"Gedanken experiments" are used to teach relativity, but
it's validity hasn't been based on them in at least 60 years.
The only people who rely entirely on "gedanken experiments" to
support their claims are those with no experimental evidence to
back them up, I'll leave it to you to figure out who
those are.
-Eric
>
> JamesA
--
---------------------------------------------------------
* Eric Prebys, Physics Department, Princeton University *
* 609-258-4910, FAX: -6360, Email: pre...@princeton.edu *
* WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~prebys/ *
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carlip
> JamesA wrote:
>> Does the existance of the preferred reference frame identified
>> from cosmic background radiatiion (CBR) doppler shift
>> measurements have any implications for special relativity
>> and the twin paradox?
> If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an excellent
> candidate.
While I agree with the rest of Eric's reply---which I've therefore
deleted here---this comment deserves a bit of clarification.
The usual picture of an ``absolute rest frame'' includes the provision
that if I'm at rest in that frame and you're at rest in that frame, then
you're at rest with respect to me. That's part of what makes it a ``rest''
frame.
The CMBR frame fails this condition. If I adjust my speed so that
the CMBR seen here is isotropic, and someone in a reasonably distant
galaxy adjusts his/her/its speed so that the CMBR seen there is isotropic,
then although we'll both be at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave
background, we'll actually be moving away from each other. This is
not as mysterious as it might sound---it happens because the CMBR
expands along with the Universe, so the CMBR ``here'' and ``there''
is in relative motion.
Although this may seem to just be an appeal to theory, it's not---
we can actually look at distant galaxy clusters, see that they are moving
away from us, and then check to see whether they're at rest with respect
to their local CMBR. The latter test---the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
(SZ) effect---is possible because the clouds of gas within the distant
cluster interact with the CMBR, slightly changing its temperature and
spectrum, and the changes depend on the average velocity of the gas
relative to the CMBR.
So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal frame, it's not
what most people would call a rest frame.
Steve Carlip
Dwhig265
>First, we should understand clearly what is meant by our velocity
>relative to CMB "rest frame", since "rest frame" is weird concept where
>light is involved. All the light is still moving at "c" in our frame,
>or at least there is no evidence it is not.
DWH says: You wouldn't call the fact that no motion of our galaxy relative to
the galaxies in HDF N&S moving away from us at greater than z = 5.8 evidence
that the cmbr is standing still relative to the center of gravity of our local
group?
>A slight anisotropy was seen in the "temperature" of the cosmic
>black body radiation; ignoring the small scale anisotropy, the average
>CMBR coming from one particular direction is slightly hotter
>(more blue-shifted) than the CMBR coming
>from the opposite direction. Now if you ask yourself "How fast would
>I have to move toward the cooler CMB so that the doppler shift
>made everything isotropic?", the answer is about 600 km/s,
>so we interpret a frame moving at 600 km/s, toward the "cool" CMB
>as the CMB "rest frame".
DWH says: Which is the same thing as saying the frame is standing still and our
combined intergalactic motion is 600 kps toward the hot blue end.
>If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an excellent
>candidate.
DWH says: I don't think you should use the word "absolute" in discussing local
reference frames. I'm sure you mean the cmbr appears to be at rest relative to
the center of gravity of the Milky Way, or perhaps, the local group..I have no
quarrel with the rest of your post nor with this part really. I am just piggy
backing to further the idea that the cmbr is a local envelope that travels with
the galaxy and in fact is the long sought "aether" and has nothing whatsoever
to do with the big bang. I thank you for largely confirming it.
http://members.aol.com/dwhig265/index.htm Regards, Dwain Higginbotham
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Does the existance of the preferred reference frame identified from cosmic
> background radiatiion (CBR) doppler shift measurements have any implications
> for special relativity and the twin paradox?
>
This is not a preferred reference frame in the sense
that the term is meant in discussing relativity.
It is a coordinate system (not an inertial frame)
in which the CBR is isotropic. But the CBR is just
a particular physical system. There is nothing special
about the laws of physics in that coordinate system.
A preferred frame in relativity context is one in which the
laws of physics take a special form that is simpler than
in other frames.
John Anderson
MLuttgens
<pre...@princeton.edu> wrote :
>Date : Thu, 30 Aug 2001
>
Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
be measured. Steve Carlip claims that it is not an absolute rest
frame because the universe is expanding. This is true, but the universe
could be static.
For instance, Jim Jast wrote on August 06 in a message to
sci.astro.research (Re: Redshifts)
"Expansion of the universe seems to be the simplest explanation and
that's probably the only reason why it was adopted. The serious defect
of that explanation however is that it contradicts the conservation of
energy. As it has been shown in this NG, an assumption that energy
is conserved forces a result that time runs slower roughly proportionally
to the distance from the observer (any observer of course) and that it
would simulate an expansion of the universe".
According to Einstein, motion through an "ether filling empty space"
is a *meaningless concept*, only motion relative to material
bodies has physical significance.
1. If "motion" is replaced by "displacement of position", Einstein's
view is correct, since there is no physical way to measure such displacement.
Hence, experiments like the MMX will be negative and the GPS clocks
will not be affected by any displacement of Earth due to its velocity
wrt the CMBR. Also, the relativity of simultaneity (ROS) is a
meaningless concept in situations like the one described in the
Twin paradox.
2; However, "motion" also implies velocity, and velocity in an "ether
filling empty space" can be measured via the CMBR dipole.
So, velocity through an "ether filling empty space"is not a *meaningless
concept*. In my "LET analysis of the Twin paradox", which don't use
the ROS, I have shown that the duration of the one-way trips is
related to that of the round-trip by the relation t(one-way) = t(round-trip) *
(1+Vv)/2.
Only if the Earth is at rest wrt the CMBR (V=0) are the durations of
the one-way trips identical.
Marcel Luttgens
Joe Fischer
:
: In article <3B8E8C20...@princeton.edu>, Eric Prebys It looks like MLuttgens left Eric Prebys' remarks
at the end and wrote:
: Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
: frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
: be measured.
In "local" empty space, yes, but not a "universal frame".
: Steve Carlip claims that it is not an absolute rest
: frame because the universe is expanding. This is true,
: but the universe could be static.
Are you aware that General Relativity seems to
require an expanding universe? There are a few remarks
in the literature about a deSitter model, but I would
like a good reference to an in depth description of the
model myself, it isn't really clear what it is based on.
: For instance, Jim Jast wrote on August 06 in a message to
: sci.astro.research (Re: Redshifts)
: "Expansion of the universe seems to be the simplest explanation and
: that's probably the only reason why it was adopted. The serious defect
: of that explanation however is that it contradicts the conservation of
: energy. As it has been shown in this NG, an assumption that energy
: is conserved forces a result that time runs slower roughly proportionally
: to the distance from the observer (any observer of course) and that it
: would simulate an expansion of the universe".
Energy is __NOT__ conserved globally, or in all cases
in the presence of gravity, at least not in the simplistic
Newtonian way that Jim Jast is probably thinking about.
Stars form, and emit such great quantities of energy,
from the process of gravitation causing fusion, man really
is not able to appreciate the scope.
: According to Einstein, motion through an "ether filling empty space"
: is a *meaningless concept*, only motion relative to material
: bodies has physical significance.
Right on! An ether filling empty space is therefore,
by that very conjecture, is also not worth considering.
: 1. If "motion" is replaced by "displacement of position", Einstein's
: view is correct, since there is no physical way to measure such displacement.
Correct, the only markers in space are material objects,
and they are all "moving", at least relative to each other.
If the day were to come when a way to determine what
_not_ moving, in space, even means, I would be interested.
: Hence, experiments like the MMX will be negative and the GPS clocks
: will not be affected by any displacement of Earth due to its velocity
: wrt the CMBR.
That shouldn't be an issue, regardless if it is
true or not, the motion of the sun relative to the CMBR
is great compared to the orbital velocity of Earth.
: Also, the relativity of simultaneity (ROS) is a
: meaningless concept in situations like the one described in the
: Twin paradox.
A poorly define concept is pretty meaningless
in any case.
: 2; However, "motion" also implies velocity,
Why didn't you quit while you were ahead? If you
study relativity with the objective of finding fault with
it, what is the purpose?
Motion is only meaningful if you specify "relative
to what". On the surface of the Earth, we don't bother
to say "60 KPH relative to the cracks in the pavement",
but that is what we mean.
Orbital velocity is 37,000 feet per second, and
that is also a relative velocity.
: and velocity in an "ether
: filling empty space" can be measured via the CMBR dipole.
The presence or absence of an ether filling space
need not even enter into the thought.
The CMBR is microwave radiation, at very low levels.
Nothing needs an ether, there isn't anything or even any
rational concept that needs an ether.
: So, velocity through an "ether filling empty space"is not a *meaningless
: concept*.
That would be correct if you could build an
ether speedometer, but as of now all we have is a
CMBR speedometer.
: In my "LET analysis of the Twin paradox", which don't use
: the ROS, I have shown that the duration of the one-way trips is
: related to that of the round-trip by the relation t(one-way)
: = t(round-trip) * (1+Vv)/2.
: Only if the Earth is at rest wrt the CMBR (V=0) are the durations of
: the one-way trips identical.
: Marcel Luttgens
My opinion is that you are wasting your time,
and the reader's time.
But I hope Usenet always allows free speech and
thought.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Dwhig265
>From: Steve Carlip car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
>Date: 8/30/01 5:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>> JamesA wrote:
>>> Does the existance of the preferred reference frame identified
>>> from cosmic background radiatiion (CBR) doppler shift
>>> measurements have any implications for special relativity
>>> and the twin paradox?
>> If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an excellent
>> candidate.
highly respected astronomer but I can't help resenting the advantage you take
of your notoriety to give the impression that all aspects of the cmbr are a
"done deal" I would appreciate it if you would make it known in your responses
that you and other astronomers are interpreting nebulous observations to
bolster your far from proven Einsteinian convictions. I say the observational
evidence for space expanding between distant and local galactic groups and
clusters while leaving their internal spacing untouched is non existant,
bordering on black magic and obvious smoke blowing, and until you can show
otherwise in a convincing manner, without mathmatics that cannot be translated
into plain English, everything else you say in my opinion is suspect!
Respectfully, Dwain Higginbotham
http://members.aol.com/dwhig265/index.htm
Dwhig265
> My opinion is that you are wasting your time,
>and the reader's time.
> But I hope Usenet always allows free speech and
>thought.
>Joe Fischer
say depends on space expansion. I just made a lengthy diatribe in response to
Carlip in this thread and I offer you the same challenge. Regards, Dwain
Higginbotham
Joe Fischer
:Joe Fischer wrote to ML:
:> My opinion is that you are wasting your time,
:>and the reader's time.
:> But I hope Usenet always allows free speech and
:>thought.
: DWH says; I feel the same as you about your own post in which everything you
: say depends on space expansion.
I didn't say "space expands", I said the only thing
with physical meaning is the measurements between material
objects.
Yes, I think Cosmologists say space expands, but
they mean something different, I don't think they subscribe
to "space" having any intrinsic physical attributes.
I think the reason they have to say something like
this is because more distant objects have greater velocities
of recession, which is difficult to explain even with a BB.
: I just made a lengthy diatribe in response to
: Carlip in this thread and I offer you the same challenge. Regards, Dwain
: Higginbotham
I will try to explain how a certain type of BB
could cause the appearance of an expanding space as
is observed, but in another article.
Joe Fischer
--
3
MLuttgens
<grav...@shell1.iglou.com>a écrit :
>Sujet : Re: CBR Rest Frame, Special Relativity and the Twin Paradox
>De : Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com>
>Date : 31 Aug 2001 14:13:36 -0400
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
shuba
[to Steve Carlip]
> DWH says: I commend you on the clarity of your response and I know you are a
> highly respected astronomer [..]
Do you ever do the slightest bit of research before spouting off about
what you "know"?
[snip braying of the mule]
---Tim Shuba---
Joe Fischer
: Dans l'article <3b8fd3d0_2@news........
If you need help in learning to delete unneeded quoted
text, I will be glad to help.
: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
Shades of Van Flatlanders.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Tom Roberts
> Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
> frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
> be measured.
Not true:
1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" --
the latter _MUST_ be precisely at rest in some locally-inertial
frame; the CMBR of course is not at rest in any frame, and the
usual "CMBR frame" is really the locally-inertial frame in which
the CMBR dipole vanishes, BUT HIGHER MULTIPOLES DON'T VANISH.
This is directly related to the fact that the CMBR is ot a
"thing", nor a single object; it is a _collction_ of radiation
travelling in all possible directions with all possible energies.
4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
5) and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the CMBR
as a reference -- the object must be immersed in the CMBR.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>MLuttgens wrote:
>> Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
>> frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
>> be measured.
Well we (I, Barry and I'm sure others) were wondering when you would
chime in with your standard 'off the shelf' chant of...
> Not true:
> 1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
> shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
An Osterich cannot see the world around him when he buries his head in
the sand, that does not mean the world does not exist... Great logic
here...
> 2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
> even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
> earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
> to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
A fish sits peacefully motionless in the Gulf Stream, which is moving
wrt the mid-Atlantic region, so what. That's normal in any any medium
Your sitting peacefully still yet the continent nmoves in the mantle,
etc, etc, etc... Great logic here also...
> 3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" --
> the latter _MUST_ be precisely at rest in some locally-inertial
> frame; the CMBR of course is not at rest in any frame, and the
> usual "CMBR frame" is really the locally-inertial frame in which
> the CMBR dipole vanishes, BUT HIGHER MULTIPOLES DON'T VANISH.
> This is directly related to the fact that the CMBR is ot a
> "thing", nor a single object; it is a _collction_ of radiation
> travelling in all possible directions with all possible energies.
Yup, and those 'multi-poles' aren't fixed in space. Every attempt to
map these has resulted in very different patterns. That's because
there are simple statistical variations MANY orders of magnitude
smaller than the CMBR Doppler. Show me where these have any statistical
significance.
> 4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
> expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
> galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
> can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
There is grasping at straws but this one is ridiculous. In any
rather vast region of 'real space', at this instant, it is a
great standard by which to measure all motion.
> 5) and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the CMBR
> as a reference -- the object must be immersed in the CMBR.
Where can a scientist find such 'empty space' out there?
Finally, let's look at a few other comments on this,
"If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
excellent candidate." (Eric Prebys, Physics Department,
Princeton University)
and,
"So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal
frame, it's not what most people would call a rest frame."
(Steve Carlip)
It seem that Tom is getting a little desperate with this, doesn't it.
Paul Stowe
shuba
[snip attacks on Tom Roberts]
> Finally, let's look at a few other comments on this,
>
> "If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
> excellent candidate." (Eric Prebys, Physics Department,
> Princeton University)
>
> and,
>
> "So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal
> frame, it's not what most people would call a rest frame."
> (Steve Carlip)
Hey. Would that be the "duplicitous" Steve Carlip?
> It seem that Tom is getting a little desperate with this, doesn't it.
Not really.
I think that you'll find general agreement among the three actual
physicists that you've referred to. You'll also find general
agreement among such antirelativist non-physicists as Paul Stowe,
the bastard greywolf, and Trevor Morris. It's no surprise that
not one of the latter group of etherists have pointed out the flaws
in Marcel Luttgen's incorrect presentation of LET. What frauds!
---Tim Shuba---
Stephen Speicher
> In article <3B90427E...@avenew.com>,
> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>
> >MLuttgens wrote:
> >> Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
> >> frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
> >> be measured.
>
> > Not true:
> > 1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
> > shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
> > 2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
> > even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
> > earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
> > to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
> > 3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" --
> > the latter _MUST_ be precisely at rest in some locally-inertial
> > frame; the CMBR of course is not at rest in any frame, and the
> > usual "CMBR frame" is really the locally-inertial frame in which
> > the CMBR dipole vanishes, BUT HIGHER MULTIPOLES DON'T VANISH.
> > This is directly related to the fact that the CMBR is ot a
> > "thing", nor a single object; it is a _collction_ of radiation
> > travelling in all possible directions with all possible energies.
> > 4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
> > expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
> > galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
> > can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
> > 5) and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the CMBR
> > as a reference -- the object must be immersed in the CMBR.
>
>
> Finally, let's look at a few other comments on this,
>
> "If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
> excellent candidate." (Eric Prebys, Physics Department,
> Princeton University)
>
> and,
>
> "So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal
> frame, it's not what most people would call a rest frame."
> (Steve Carlip)
>
> It seem that Tom is getting a little desperate with this, doesn't it.
>
No, but your own degree of desperation is adequately
demonstrated.
Even if you were correct (which you are not) in your assessment
of differences held by these physicists, it is most amazing that
you would treat a difference in judgment as evidence of
desperation. Especially amazing since you, Paul Stowe (and others
here), have been most vocal about how the "SRians" supposedly
march in lockstep to the Einsteinian tune, and how individually
they fail to think for themselves.
And yet, when you perceive some sense of disagreement amongst
your antagonists, you label such as an act of desperation. Of
course, it could not possibly be that Paul is threatened in any
way about losing his most precious, and most desired, absolute
frame, right?
It is quite clear to any objective reader here that it is Paul
Stowe who is acting out of sheer desperation, not Tom Roberts.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fischer
: It seem that Tom is getting a little desperate with this, doesn't it.
No, it seems you are getting even more bizarre,
the CMBR is not a medium, it is simply photons.
Joe Fischer
--
3
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : 31 Aug 2001
Sorry, it was just a reference for me. I didn't intend to send it to the NG,
even if it contains some interesting ideas.
Marcel Luttgens
MLuttgens
<sh...@my-deja.com> wrote :
>I think that you'll find general agreement among the three actual
>physicists that you've referred to. You'll also find general
>agreement among such antirelativist non-physicists as Paul Stowe,
>the bastard greywolf, and Trevor Morris. It's no surprise that
>not one of the latter group of etherists have pointed out the flaws
>in Marcel Luttgen's incorrect presentation of LET. What frauds!
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
You should first demonstrate that there are flaws, before having recourse to
name-calling.
Marcel Luttgens
MLuttgens
>Date : Fri, 31 Aug 2001
Paul Stowe has refuted your pseudo-arguments point by point.
What strikes me the most in your posts is the theoretical flavour of
your approaches, for instance in "Re: What does "Euclidean space"
mean? Was Re: MRe: What Causes Things":
Charles Francis wrote:
> really we can only talk about the co-ordinates of matter, not about
>co-ordinates of empty space, and we can only set up co-ordinates
>at an origin which is defined by the presence of matter.
You replied:
"I disagree. _ANY_ method of specifying an origin will do. Remember
we are working with coordiantes ON A MANIFOLD, and that manifold
is a _model_ of the real world, not the world itself. So I, as an analyst
examining the manifold, can simply point to a particular point in the
manifold and say "put the origin _there_".
Do you realize that your particular point in the manifold has no
physical meaning at all, *unless* it can be related to material objects
present in the real world?
You can of course point to a particular spot on a piece of paper, and
call it its origin, but the coordinates of that origin are relative to what?
Of course, to the sides of the piece of paper, but where are the
sides of the real world?
Marcel Luttgens
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : 31 Aug 2001
>
>MLuttgens <mlut...@aol.com> wrote:
>:
>: In article <3B8E8C20...@princeton.edu>, Eric Prebys
>: <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote :
>:
>:>Date : Thu, 30 Aug 2001
>
> It looks like MLuttgens left Eric Prebys' remarks
>at the end and wrote:
>
>: Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
>: frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
>: be measured.
>
> In "local" empty space, yes, but not a "universal frame".
>
Do you disagree with those quotations? :
"If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
excellent candidate." (Eric Prebys, Physics Department,
Princeton University)
"So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal
frame, it's not what most people would call a rest frame."
(Steve Carlip)
>: Steve Carlip claims that it is not an absolute rest
>: frame because the universe is expanding. This is true,
>: but the universe could be static.
>
> Are you aware that General Relativity seems to
>require an expanding universe? There are a few remarks
>in the literature about a deSitter model, but I would
>like a good reference to an in depth description of the
>model myself, it isn't really clear what it is based on.
>
Yes, but an expanding universe implies a big bang. Imo, the
BB theory has become so laden with successive layers that it
has lost most of its coherence.
>: For instance, Jim Jast wrote on August 06 in a message to
>: sci.astro.research (Re: Redshifts)
>: "Expansion of the universe seems to be the simplest explanation and
>: that's probably the only reason why it was adopted. The serious defect
>: of that explanation however is that it contradicts the conservation of
>: energy. As it has been shown in this NG, an assumption that energy
>: is conserved forces a result that time runs slower roughly proportionally
>: to the distance from the observer (any observer of course) and that it
>: would simulate an expansion of the universe".
>
> Energy is __NOT__ conserved globally, or in all cases
>in the presence of gravity, at least not in the simplistic
>Newtonian way that Jim Jast is probably thinking about.
I will try to contact Jim Jast to get some info about what he is
really thinking.
> Stars form, and emit such great quantities of energy,
>from the process of gravitation causing fusion, man really
>is not able to appreciate the scope.
>
The following point raised by Tom Van Flandern looks pertinent:
"The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies. The same
problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even vaster
structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such large scales
in the time available unless relative velocities were much higher in the
past. But higher past velocities would require a dissipation mechanism
which would have released tremendous energy. There is no credible
evidence at present for the operation of such an enormous energy sink
as would be required to resolve this dilemma. Therefore, this test
presently favors static universe models, which have essentially
unlimited time to form the observed structures through normal processes."
>: According to Einstein, motion through an "ether filling empty space"
>: is a *meaningless concept*, only motion relative to material
>: bodies has physical significance.
>
> Right on! An ether filling empty space is therefore,
>by that very conjecture, is also not worth considering.
>
It would be better to say that it is not needed.
>: 1. If "motion" is replaced by "displacement of position", Einstein's
>: view is correct, since there is no physical way to measure such
>displacement.
>
> Correct, the only markers in space are material objects,
>and they are all "moving", at least relative to each other.
Yes.
> If the day were to come when a way to determine what
>_not_ moving, in space, even means, I would be interested.
>
>: Hence, experiments like the MMX will be negative and the GPS clocks
>: will not be affected by any displacement of Earth due to its velocity
>: wrt the CMBR.
>
> That shouldn't be an issue, regardless if it is
>true or not, the motion of the sun relative to the CMBR
>is great compared to the orbital velocity of Earth.
>
>: Also, the relativity of simultaneity (ROS) is a
>: meaningless concept in situations like the one described in the
>: Twin paradox.
>
> A poorly define concept is pretty meaningless
>in any case.
>
>: 2; However, "motion" also implies velocity,
>
> Why didn't you quit while you were ahead? If you
>study relativity with the objective of finding fault with
>it, what is the purpose?
The obvious purpose is to find a more realistic theory.
> Motion is only meaningful if you specify "relative
>to what". On the surface of the Earth, we don't bother
>to say "60 KPH relative to the cracks in the pavement",
>but that is what we mean.
> Orbital velocity is 37,000 feet per second, and
>that is also a relative velocity.
>
The cracks are also moving wrt to something, but the CMBR
is not moving wrt another frame, so it can be called the absolute rest
frame, and used as such.
>: and velocity in an "ether
>: filling empty space" can be measured via the CMBR dipole.
>
> The presence or absence of an ether filling space
>need not even enter into the thought.
I put the concept in quotation marks because it was used by Einstein.
As I said above, the ether is not really needed in this context.
> The CMBR is microwave radiation, at very low levels.
>Nothing needs an ether, there isn't anything or even any
>rational concept that needs an ether.
>
>: So, velocity through an "ether filling empty space"is not a *meaningless
>: concept*.
>
> That would be correct if you could build an
>ether speedometer, but as of now all we have is a
>CMBR speedometer.
>
>: In my "LET analysis of the Twin paradox", which don't use
>: the ROS, I have shown that the duration of the one-way trips is
>: related to that of the round-trip by the relation t(one-way)
>: = t(round-trip) * (1+Vv)/2.
>: Only if the Earth is at rest wrt the CMBR (V=0) are the durations of
>: the one-way trips identical.
>: Marcel Luttgens
>
> My opinion is that you are wasting your time,
>and the reader's time.
> But I hope Usenet always allows free speech and
>thought.
I stated that a displacement of position in the CMBR can not
be measured, hence the ROS is meaningless.
Using LET without the ROS to analyse the Twin paradox, I have
demonstrated that outward and return trips of Stella are a function
not only of her velocity v wrt the Earth, but also of the Earth velocity V
in the CMBR.
The obtained LET relation is t(one-way) = t(round-trip) * (1+Vv)/2
(measured on Earth), where t(round-trip)=2t / sqrt(1-v^2), t being
the duration of Stella one-way trips measured on her watch, i.e. 1 year. Otoh,
the one-way and round-trip times are those observed by Terence.
For instance, V=.99 c and v = -.99 in the outward trip and +.99 c
in the return trip.
t(round-trip ) = 2*1/sqrt(1-.99^2) = 14.18 years
t(outward) = 14.18 * (1 + .99*(-.99)) / 2 = .14 year
t(return) = 14.18 * (1 + .99*(+.99)) / 2 = 14.04 years
This case corresponds to a SR anaysis using as frame of reference
the one in which Stella is at rest during the outbound part of her trip.
Here, SR considers that the Earth moves at .99 c wrt to Stella.
It finds the same times as LET, but with a much more complicated
reasoning.
When the SR analysis uses the Earth as the reference frame, it
considers that Stella moves wrt the Earth at +- .99 c.
For LET, this is the case where V=0, and the formula giving the
duration of the one-way trips reduces to t(one-way) = t(round-trip) / 2.
One cannot imagine a simpler solution than that of LET.
The difference between LET and SR is that the former theory gives
more general results in a more straightforward way.
Do you still think I am wasting the reader's time?
>
>Joe Fischer
Marcel Luttgens
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
The readers will note that you deliberately removed the point by point
counters provided to the above ridiculous five comments. There seems
to be only one reason for such behavior, and it's not because you wanted
to save space. So, do you Stephen agree that these represent valid
rational arguments against the CMBR as a global frame by which one can
measure all motion consistently? If so, then defend them, answer my
counters, if not then be magnamimous enough to concede that Tom is acting
irrationally on this issue...
>> Finally, let's look at a few other comments on this,
>>
>> "If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
>> excellent candidate." (Eric Prebys, Physics Department,
>> Princeton University)
>>
>> and,
>>
>> "So while the CMBR might be a candidate for a universal
>> frame, it's not what most people would call a rest frame."
>> (Steve Carlip)
>>
>> It seem that Tom is getting a little desperate with this, doesn't it.
>>
> No, but your own degree of desperation is adequately demonstrated.
>
> Even if you were correct (which you are not) in your assessment
> of differences held by these physicists,
Listen, I also agree with John Anderson when he said,
"This is not a preferred reference frame in the sense
that the term is meant in discussing relativity.
It is a coordinate system (not an inertial frame)
in which the CBR is isotropic. But the CBR is just
a particular physical system. There is nothing special
about the laws of physics in that coordinate system.
A preferred frame in relativity context is one in which
the laws of physics take a special form that is simpler
than in other frames."
Alas, now I have to comment on one point in John's statement,
"It is a coordinate system (not an inertial frame)..."
A difference without meaning... SR is just a means of changing
coordinate systems.
However, the words preferred and universial are NOT synonymous.
> it is most amazing that you would treat a difference in judgment
> as evidence of desperation.
No, I treat the apparent denial behavior of Tom as desparation.
> Especially amazing since you, Paul Stowe (and others here), have
> been most vocal about how the "SRians" supposedly march in lockstep
> to the Einsteinian tune, and how individually they fail to think
> for themselves. ...
OK, again Stephen as I said above rational defend the points made
by Tom, what I personally think shouldn't matter. The points stand
or fall on their own merits.
> ...And yet, when you perceive some sense of disagreement amongst
> your antagonists, you label such as an act of desperation. Of
> course, it could not possibly be that Paul is threatened in any
> way about losing his most precious, and most desired, absolute
> frame, right?
Please note that I had no problem with what either Steve, Eric or
Mr. Anderson said. Those, while I might not hold exactly the same
interpetation, are at least rational.
> It is quite clear to any objective reader here that it is Paul
> Stowe who is acting out of sheer desperation, not Tom Roberts.
Then show this on points, not ad hominem.
Paul Stowe
shuba
> >I think that you'll find general agreement among the three actual
> >physicists that you've referred to. You'll also find general
> >agreement among such antirelativist non-physicists as Paul Stowe,
> >the bastard greywolf, and Trevor Morris. It's no surprise that
> >not one of the latter group of etherists have pointed out the flaws
> >in Marcel Luttgen's incorrect presentation of LET. What frauds!
>
> You should first demonstrate that there are flaws, before having recourse to
> name-calling.
Your incompetence has already been documented. Too bad neither you
nor the above-mentioned etherists seems to have the slightest interest
in correctly presenting LET or SR.
---Tim Shuba---
Stephen Speicher
How typical of Paul Stowe; unable to grasp the point being made
he implies some devious action. In the case with Tom Roberts no
implication was necessary -- Paul's own ignorance led him to
accuse Tom of desperation, truly laughable when one considers the
intellect of those involved.
Paul, the reason I snipped your "point by point counters" is,
primarily, that they were irrelevant to the issue I chose to
address; namely your ludicrous assertion of desperation on Tom's
part. I let Tom's remarks stand so that any interested reader
could judge for themselves the intellectual and emotional status
of Tom's comments.
So yes, my snipping of your remarks was "deliberately" done, but
"such behavior" carried with it none of the emotionally laden and
skewed implications which you offered.
>
> So, do you Stephen agree that these represent valid rational
> arguments against the CMBR as a global frame by which one can
> measure all motion consistently? If so, then defend them,
> answer my counters, if not then be magnamimous enough to
> concede that Tom is acting irrationally on this issue...
>
The only irrationality being displayed here is on the part of
Paul Stowe, alone. Paul clearly has no grasp of what
irrationality is, at least from the perspective of
_understanding_ the concept.
Paul asserts that unless I am able to defend the validity of
Tom's arguments, then I must concede that Tom is "acting
irrationally." That someone is mistaken in their argument or
conclusion is not evidence of irrationality; to be rational means
having a commitment to reason, and relying on reason and fact
alone in the judgments that are made. Using reason does not
automatically guarantee a straight path to the truth, because
mistakes in knowledge and failure of identification can lead one
to conclusions which are wrong, while using an entirely rational
process. If such a rational process is to apply to anyone on this
list, Tom must be singled out as being exemplary in regard to his
rational approach.
By contrast, Paul continually demonstrates that it is not just
disagreement about ideas that is the issue for him, but it is an
emotional involvement which clouds his rational processes. Paul's
emotions cause him to make judgments and condemnations with
disregard for the facts, and such evasion of facts is the
hallmark of irrationality. Rational people can disagree, but
when emotions replace reason -- as happens so often for Paul --
then one is clearly "acting irrationally," and just as clearly in
this case it is the accuser, Paul, who is actually responsible
for the deed.
Tom Roberts
> in "Re: What does "Euclidean space"
> mean? Was Re: MRe: What Causes Things":
>> "I disagree. _ANY_ method of specifying an origin will do. Remember
>> we are working with coordiantes ON A MANIFOLD, and that manifold
>> is a _model_ of the real world, not the world itself. So I, as an analyst
>> examining the manifold, can simply point to a particular point in the
>> manifold and say "put the origin _there_".
>
> Do you realize that your particular point in the manifold has no
> physical meaning at all, *unless* it can be related to material objects
> present in the real world?
Sure. Coordinates _NEVER_ have any "physical meaning".
However the measurements upon which some coordinates are based
can do so....
> You can of course point to a particular spot on a piece of paper, and
> call it its origin, but the coordinates of that origin are relative to
> what?
Can't you read? They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
MLuttgens
wrote :
>> You can of course point to a particular spot on a piece of paper, and
>> call it its origin, but the coordinates of that origin are relative to
>> what?
>
>Can't you read? They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
>
Can't you understand? Of course, the coordinates of the origin are
relative to the origin, but where would you put your point on the surface
of a sphere? How would you locate that point a little later, in the
absence of any physical mark on the surface?
>
>Tom Roberts
Marcel Luttgens
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> >> You can of course point to a particular spot on a piece of paper, and
> >> call it its origin, but the coordinates of that origin are relative to
> >> what?
> >
> >Can't you read? They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
> >
>
> Can't you understand? Of course, the coordinates of the origin are
> relative to the origin, but where would you put your point on the surface
> of a sphere? How would you locate that point a little later, in the
> absence of any physical mark on the surface?
Your imaginary sphere must be a globe or balloon. Tom's is an equation,
what is left of the balloon when you remove the latex. Please try to draw
on the balloon when the latex has been removed.
David A. Smith
Bill Rowe
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article
><Pine.LNX.4.10.101090...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>> In article <3B90427E...@avenew.com>,
>>> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>>> >MLuttgens wrote:
>>> >> Everybody seems to agree that the CMBR can be used as a universal
>>> >> frame, against which the velocity of an object in "empty space" can
>>> >> be measured.
>>> > Not true:
>>> > 1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
>>> > shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
>The readers will note that you deliberately removed the point by point
>counters provided to the above ridiculous five comments.
I take it you are referring to your comments? Such as the one about an
ostrich not being able to see the universe with its head in the sand you
posted in response to the one item I left from Tom Robert's post?
Let me understand your logic. Tom's comments make the point the CMBR
cannot be as a referece for velocity when it cannot be observed. Seems
to me that is quite reasonable and logical. It is not at all equivalent
to saying the CMBR doesn't exist as suggeted by your response.
So, now you are protesting when someone snipped your rather inane
comments which weren't relevant?
Seems to me the attribute "ridiculous" applies much much better to your
responses than Tom's comments.
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
island
It wouldn't matter if there was a mark on the surface, since the the
sphere, (meaning our universe), is expanding, and objects which comprise
the CBR also move perpendicular to the direction of expansion at the
same time that they move away from the point of origin. Trying to
determine any sort of absolute reference point would be a futile
exercise.
It's ironic in more ways than one. I mean, we can sense that there is
an absolute in there somewhere, but there's no way for us to put a
finger exactly on it. By the same token, you could put your finger
anywhere and call it the point of origin since the compact counterpart
of the expanding sphere constitutes the point of origin of our
universe. The point of origin is both, everywhere and no where on the
surface.
You might try saying that the point of origin exists at some location
opposite to the direction of expansion, but for the previously mentioned
reasons, there's no way to pinpoint that location in space relative to
the expanding universe, if "space" even exists "back" there.
Tom Roberts
> <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote :
> >They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
> relative to the origin, but where would you put your point on the surface
> of a sphere? How would you locate that point a little later, in the
> absence of any physical mark on the surface?
In the case of the surface of the sphere (considering it a 2-d manifold)
time has no meaning and designating a given point once is sufficient:
the designated point will remain the designated point for all time in
the analyst's world.
But we were discussing relativity. In GR, the manifold is 4-dimensional
and the origin of coordinates is a single point in that manifold -- i.e.
a single event; your question does not make sense.
Stated differently: In BOTH of these examples there is NO SUCH THING as
"that point a little later". But the reasons for this are different --
in the first case time does not apply to the manifold, and in the second
case time is part of the manifold and "a little later" no longer refers
to the origin of coordinates.
If you want to know where the point x=0,y=0,z=0,t="a little
later" is located, you'll have to look at the coordinates
{x,y,z,t}, because this depends _EXPLICITLY_ upon how those
particular coordinates are assigned to points in the manifold
-- that's what coordiantes _ARE_.
Unless you meant "a little later" to apply in _OUR_ time. In that case
the analyst's memory is sufficient. The mathematical model of a
manifold implies that individual points can be identified, and that's
all that is necessary here; any point which is designated remains
itself and therefore designated (here "remains" is in the analyst's
world, not the manifold itself).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
MLuttgens
\(formerly\)" <dl...@home.com> wrote :
>Date : Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:22:46 GMT
Must be an equation, on which Tom Roberts put a mathematical point.
But he also put the point somehere in his memory, in order to not
forget its location.
Marcel Luttgens
MLuttgens
>Date : Sun, 02 Sep 2001
>
>MLuttgens wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B9116D4...@avenew.com>, Tom Roberts
><TomRo...@avenew.com>
>> wrote :
>>
>> >> You can of course point to a particular spot on a piece of paper, and
>> >> call it its origin, but the coordinates of that origin are relative to
>> >> what?
>> >
>> >Can't you read? They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
>> >
>>
>> Can't you understand? Of course, the coordinates of the origin are
>> relative to the origin, but where would you put your point on the surface
>> of a sphere? How would you locate that point a little later, in the
>> absence of any physical mark on the surface?
>>
>> >
>> >Tom Roberts
>>
>> Marcel Luttgens
>
>
>It wouldn't matter if there was a mark on the surface, since the the
>sphere, (meaning our universe), is expanding, and objects which comprise
>the CBR also move perpendicular to the direction of expansion at the
>same time that they move away from the point of origin. Trying to
>determine any sort of absolute reference point would be a futile
>exercise.
>
Of course, no mark is at rest in the real universe, even if it were not
expanding. The exercise is indeed futile.
>It's ironic in more ways than one. I mean, we can sense that there is
>an absolute in there somewhere, but there's no way for us to put a
>finger exactly on it. By the same token, you could put your finger
>anywhere and call it the point of origin since the compact counterpart
>of the expanding sphere constitutes the point of origin of our
>universe. The point of origin is both, everywhere and no where on the
>surface.
>
I wholly agree, only, I would prefer to leave the term "expanding" aside.
>You might try saying that the point of origin exists at some location
>opposite to the direction of expansion, but for the previously mentioned
>reasons, there's no way to pinpoint that location in space relative to
>the expanding universe, if "space" even exists "back" there.
Marcel Luttgens
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : Sat, 01 Sep 2001
>
>MLuttgens wrote:
>> <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote :
>> >They are relative to that origin, of course. <shrug>
>> Of course, the coordinates of the origin are
>> relative to the origin, but where would you put your point on the surface
>> of a sphere? How would you locate that point a little later, in the
>> absence of any physical mark on the surface?
>
>In the case of the surface of the sphere (considering it a 2-d manifold)
>time has no meaning and designating a given point once is sufficient:
>the designated point will remain the designated point for all time in
>the analyst's world.
>
What a contradictory statement. First you state that time has no meaning, and a
few words later, that the point will *remain* the point
*for all time*.
>But we were discussing relativity. In GR, the manifold is 4-dimensional
>and the origin of coordinates is a single point in that manifold -- i.e.
>a single event; your question does not make sense.
>
I was referring to the simple situation of a 2-dimensional manifold in
the context of analytical geometry. But my conclusion that a physical
reference is needed is valid for any type of manifold.
>Stated differently: In BOTH of these examples there is NO SUCH THING as
>"that point a little later". But the reasons for this are different --
>in the first case time does not apply to the manifold, and in the second
>case time is part of the manifold and "a little later" no longer refers
>to the origin of coordinates.
>
> If you want to know where the point x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0"a little
> later" is located, you'll have to look at the coordinates
> {x,y,z,t}, because this depends _EXPLICITLY_ upon how those
> particular coordinates are assigned to points in the manifold
> -- that's what coordiantes _ARE_.
But you need a piece of paper, a computer file or simply your mind
to be able to locate the successive positions of the point.
>
>Unless you meant "a little later" to apply in _OUR_ time. In that case
>the analyst's memory is sufficient. The mathematical model of a
>manifold implies that individual points can be identified, and that's
>all that is necessary here; any point which is designated remains
>itself and therefore designated (here "remains" is in the analyst's
>world, not the manifold itself).
>
The origin of the discussion was a statement of Charles Francis
in "Re: What does "Euclidean space" mean? Was Re: MRe: What Causes Things
to Fall":
"really we can only talk about the co-ordinates of matter, not about
co-ordinates of empty space, and we can only set up co-ordinates
at an origin which is defined by the presence of matter."
You disagreed, claiming that
" _ANY_ method of specifying an origin will do. Remember we
are working with coordiantes ON A MANIFOLD, and that manifold
is a _model_ of the real world, not the world itself. So I, as an analyst
examining the manifold, can simply point to a particular point in the
manifold and say "put the origin _there_".
This only makes sense if you can relate the coordinates to the real
world, if only your memory. Iow, the definition of their origin
necessitates the presence of matter.
>
>Tom Roberts
Marcel Luttgens
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
> [about the CMBR dipole=0 frame as a "universal rest frame"]
> > 1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
> > shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
> An Osterich cannot see the world around him when he buries his head in
> the sand, that does not mean the world does not exist... Great logic
> here...
You fail to address what I said. In this context, "Universal" means
essentially everywhere, and if a "universal" something can be excluded
from a region of space then it is not very universal. It is not I "who
buries his head in the sand", it is _THE_CMBR_.
> > 2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
> > even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
> > earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
> > to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
> A fish sits peacefully motionless in the Gulf Stream, which is moving
> wrt the mid-Atlantic region, so what. That's normal in any any medium
Again you fail to address what I said. That ocean is not a "frame"
either. <shrug>
> > 3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" [...]
> Yup, and those 'multi-poles' aren't fixed in space. Every attempt to
> map these has resulted in very different patterns. [...]
Again you fail to address what I said. The CMBR _still_ does not
define any reasonable "local ether frame".
> > 4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
> > expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
> > galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
> > can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
> In any
> rather vast region of 'real space', at this instant, it is a
> great standard by which to measure all motion.
Except, of course, for the fact that things at rest wrt the CMBR
are moving relative to other things at rest wrt the CMBR. Not a
very good "standard".
> > 5) and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the CMBR
> > as a reference -- the object must be immersed in the CMBR.
> Where can a scientist find such 'empty space' out there?
It was not I who brought up the issue of "empty space".
Paul Stowe is a good example of someone whose "personal opinions sound
so loud in his ears that he cannot hear anyone else [attribution lost]".
Attempting to converse with him is almost impossible, because he does
not respond to what you write, but rather to his personal prejudices
and dreams about what the world "really" looks like.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote :
> >In the case of the surface of the sphere (considering it a 2-d manifold)
> >time has no meaning and designating a given point once is sufficient:
> >the designated point will remain the designated point for all time in
> >the analyst's world.
> What a contradictory statement.
It's not "contradictory" at all, but you _DO_ need to read what I said.
<shrug>
> First you state that time has no meaning, and a
> few words later, that the point will *remain* the point
> *for all time*.
You forgot my qualifying phrase "in the analyst's world", which solves
the "contradiction" you think you found. I don't put such words in just
to waste electrons....
> my conclusion that a physical
> reference is needed is valid for any type of manifold.
That is simply not true. If it were, Cartesian geometry would be
completely impossible.
> [... more nonsense in which MLuttgens repeatedly confuses the world
> with the model of the world ...]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You reasoning is no better than Tom's it seems. A submarine cannot 'see'
the world around it 'inside' of the hull. But I assure you the Navy has
been able to figure out than by using the acoustical information from the
surrounding medium its subs can use this as a 'reference frame' from which
to mount effective combat operations and gain information such as speed of
itself and other vessels.
> So, now you are protesting when someone snipped your rather inane
> comments which weren't relevant?
Inane only to shallow, unreasoning individuals...
> Seems to me the attribute "ridiculous" applies much much better to your
> responses than Tom's comments.
Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
An your 'objective' measure of intellect is what? Have you given us
both a standardized test by which to make your judgement, or have you
jumped to an subjective conclusion based upon ONLY what you read of
usenet posts. If it is the latter, you demonstrate very poor
judgement indeed.
> Paul, the reason I snipped your "point by point counters" is,
> primarily, that they were irrelevant to the issue I chose to
> address; namely your ludicrous assertion of desperation on Tom's
> part. I let Tom's remarks stand so that any interested reader
> could judge for themselves the intellectual and emotional status
> of Tom's comments.
>
> So yes, my snipping of your remarks was "deliberately" done, but
> "such behavior" carried with it none of the emotionally laden and
> skewed implications which you offered.
Then why bother? The action would suggest otherwise... You know
what they say, actions speak louder than words...
>> So, do you Stephen agree that these represent valid rational
>> arguments against the CMBR as a global frame by which one can
>> measure all motion consistently? If so, then defend them,
>> answer my counters, if not then be magnamimous enough to
>> concede that Tom is acting irrationally on this issue...
>>
> The only irrationality being displayed here is on the part of
> Paul Stowe, alone. Paul clearly has no grasp of what
> irrationality is, at least from the perspective of
> _understanding_ the concept.
>
> Paul asserts that unless I am able to defend the validity of
> Tom's arguments, then I must concede that Tom is "acting
> irrationally." That someone is mistaken in their argument or
> conclusion is not evidence of irrationality; to be rational means
> having a commitment to reason, and relying on reason and fact
> alone in the judgments that are made. Using reason does not
> automatically guarantee a straight path to the truth, because
> mistakes in knowledge and failure of identification can lead one
> to conclusions which are wrong, while using an entirely rational
> process. If such a rational process is to apply to anyone on this
> list, Tom must be singled out as being exemplary in regard to his
> rational approach.
Let's boil this down to basics, you cannot logically defend the points
made by Tom, fine.
> By contrast, Paul continually demonstrates that it is not just
> disagreement about ideas that is the issue for him, but it is an
> emotional involvement which clouds his rational processes. Paul's
> emotions cause him to make judgments and condemnations with
> disregard for the facts, and such evasion of facts is the
> hallmark of irrationality. Rational people can disagree, but
> when emotions replace reason -- as happens so often for Paul --
> then one is clearly "acting irrationally," and just as clearly in
> this case it is the accuser, Paul, who is actually responsible
> for the deed.
Let me be clear, I've said on numerous occasions that the CMBR represents
a global standard means by which one can measure the velocity of objects
thru interstellar/intergalactic space.
The logical basis of this is,
1. Standard convention claims that the photons constituting the CMBR
converge from all regions of space. In this sense, these represent
a non-localized, a.k.a. global phenomena.
2. Given light travels thru space at c, independent of any emitting
source, and an assumption of homogeneity of said CMBR radiation, the
state of zero Doppler wrt to same represents a state of rest wrt to
space itself at that point.
I have NEVER claimed that such a state causes ANY change in physics,
physical processes, or measurements.
Since I have never wavered from this position, have clearly explained
the basis of my position, and see no logical flaws in the basis (as
stated above), nor has anyone refuted the above points, I fail to see
and illogical or irrationality in this position. If you want to show
this, fine, do so on the issues.
I have never come up with lame-brained 'excuses' such as,
"there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful."
That's simply silly, and irrelevant to the issue.
Paul Stowe
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : Sun, 02 Sep 2001
>
>MLuttgens wrote:
>> <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote :
>> >In the case of the surface of the sphere (considering it a 2-d manifold)
>> >time has no meaning and designating a given point once is sufficient:
>> >the designated point will remain the designated point for all time in
>> >the analyst's world.
>> What a contradictory statement.
>
>It's not "contradictory" at all, but you _DO_ need to read what I said.
><shrug>
>
>
>> First you state that time has no meaning, and a
>> few words later, that the point will *remain* the point
>> *for all time*.
>
>You forgot my qualifying phrase "in the analyst's world", which solves
>the "contradiction" you think you found. I don't put such words in just
>to waste electrons....
>
I didn't forget it, but it didn't make sense to me. Is the analyst alone
in the world? Anyhow, the contradiction remains.
>
>> my conclusion that a physical
>> reference is needed is valid for any type of manifold.
>
>That is simply not true. If it were, Cartesian geometry would be
>completely impossible.
>
Why would it not be possible? Geometry is one thing, physical reality
is another.
>
>> [... more nonsense in which MLuttgens repeatedly confuses the world
>> with the model of the world ...]
>
No, but you are clearly confusing your mathematical model of the world
with the world.
By the way, this is the "nonsense" you snipped:
Joe Fischer
: You reasoning is no better than Tom's it seems. A submarine cannot 'see'
: the world around it 'inside' of the hull. But I assure you the Navy has
: been able to figure out than by using the acoustical information from the
: surrounding medium its subs can use this as a 'reference frame' from which
: to mount effective combat operations and gain information such as speed of
: itself and other vessels.
The information that is most useful is the position
of ocean bottom terrain, and the motion and position of
other craft.
While ocean currents are important to know, they
are not enough to allow even day to day operations.
:> So, now you are protesting when someone snipped your rather inane
:> comments which weren't relevant?
:
: Inane only to shallow, unreasoning individuals...
Not to mistaken individuals, not to individuals
better educated than you, not to smarter individuals
than you, not to better educated smarter individuals
than you???
Your opinions really need a relative viewpoint
qualifier, like "more shallow, more unreasoning than me".
:> Seems to me the attribute "ridiculous" applies much much better to your
:> responses than Tom's comments.
:
: Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
In your dreams. Do you still maintain that
an invisible undetectable medium can carry electric
and magnetic forces, and also produce the "forces"
that you claim are called gravity?
From what I have seen, you are not willing to
argue a single point to rational agreement, but instead
you present pages of generalities from antquity.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: [snip]
: Let me be clear, I've said on numerous occasions that the CMBR represents
: a global standard means by which one can measure the velocity of objects
: thru interstellar/intergalactic space.
With what precision? Relative to what object?
Are we able measure the velocity of other objects than
the Earth, sun, and solar system, and relative to what?
: The logical basis of this is,
:
: 1. Standard convention claims that the photons constituting the CMBR
: converge from all regions of space. In this sense, these represent
: a non-localized, a.k.a. global phenomena.
Maybe, of still uncertain origin. While the CMBR
is considered to be possibly the remenants of "the BB",
it isn't certain there was "a BB" of the kind generally
modeled.
To the extent that a motion of the solar system
relative to the nearest stars and galaxies, an approximate
relative velocity can be determined, but with not great
precision.
: 2. Given light travels thru space at c, independent of any emitting
: source, and an assumption of homogeneity of said CMBR radiation, the
: state of zero Doppler wrt to same represents a state of rest wrt to
: space itself at that point.
There isn't any "space itself". I will wait
with anticipation for your claim of a medium filling
all space.
Do you have a number on the precision of the
velocity of the solar system, using the CMBR?
My guess is that it is large, even compared
to the Earth's orbital velocity.
It supposedly has produced an approximate
velocity for the sun relative to the other stars,
but we pretty much knew that before 1960.
: I have NEVER claimed that such a state causes ANY change in physics,
: physical processes, or measurements.
:
: Since I have never wavered from this position, have clearly explained
: the basis of my position, and see no logical flaws in the basis (as
: stated above), nor has anyone refuted the above points, I fail to see
: and illogical or irrationality in this position. If you want to show
: this, fine, do so on the issues.
Apparently you are proposing something that
has not agreed with anybody but one group of posters,
I would like to see you get back to your original
objectives that seemed apparent 6 or 8 years ago.
There is simply no reason, and no rational
reasoning for trying to determine a position in
"space itself", or a velocity with respect to that
position.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Bill Rowe
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <bjrowe-38F4B1....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>,
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Let me understand your logic. Tom's comments make the point the CMBR
>> cannot be as a referece for velocity when it cannot be observed. Seems
>> to me that is quite reasonable and logical. It is not at all equivalent
>> to saying the CMBR doesn't exist as suggeted by your response.
>You reasoning is no better than Tom's it seems. A submarine cannot 'see'
>the world around it 'inside' of the hull. But I assure you the Navy has
>been able to figure out than by using the acoustical information from the
>surrounding medium its subs can use this as a 'reference frame' from which
>to mount effective combat operations and gain information such as speed of
>itself and other vessels.
And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
the example of detecting CMBR inside a screen room. In your example, the
submarine can and does detect things external to it via sound. That
enables the Navy to compute speed relative to those things.
Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
insied a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
radiation. Note the inability to do this doesn't mean one cannot measure
speed relative to something else nor does it mean CMBR doesn't exist. It
merely shows CMBR cannot be used as an universal reference, which is the
point Tom Roberts made.
Trevor Morris
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
> : PS:
> : Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
>
> JF: In your dreams. Do you still maintain that
> an invisible undetectable medium can carry electric
> and magnetic forces,
excuse me for butting in here, but this remark of yours made me
curious. Can you tell us about any observable property of these
fields that is not consistent with the existence of such a medium?
Clue: what property of space is necessary and sufficient to give a
physical explanation of the Lorentz Transformations and to extend the
Principle of Relativity to include (at least) electromagnetic
phenomena?
> and also produce the "forces"
> that you claim are called gravity?
[...]
> Joe Fischer
So you disagree with Einstein, too?
Trevor Morris
island
> And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
> the example of detecting CMBR inside a screen room. In your example, the
> submarine can and does detect things external to it via sound. That
> enables the Navy to compute speed relative to those things.
> Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
> insied a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
> radiation.
Probably the same way that you would measure sound from a room in a
submarine that's specifically designed to shield against sound. You
can't.
I have no real desire to argue against Tom's point, nor for the point of
this thread, but geez Bill!
Trevor Morris
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
> > [about the CMBR dipole=0 frame as a "universal rest frame"]
> > > shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
> > the sand, that does not mean the world does not exist... Great logic
> > here...
>
> from a region of space then it is not very universal. It is not I "who
> buries his head in the sand", it is _THE_CMBR_.
I haven't been following this, but the title looked interesting. I
hope you will agree that "Universal" means literally "of the
Universe", and I think the CMBR qualifies very well for that
description. If you don't like that, for some reason, how about
"unique" as a descriptor of the inertial frame defined by zero dipolar
anisotropy of the CMBR?
> >
> > > 2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
> > > even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
> > > earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
> > > to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
The CMBR rest frame appears to be expanding. This does not affect its
uniqueness or its local inertial status.
> > PS: A fish sits peacefully motionless in the Gulf Stream, which is moving
> > wrt the mid-Atlantic region, so what. That's normal in any any medium
>
> TR: Again you fail to address what I said. That ocean is not a "frame"
> either. <shrug>
Why not? Isn't it a frame for sonar waves?
>
> > > TR: 3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" [...]
> > PS: Yup, and those 'multi-poles' aren't fixed in space. Every attempt to
> > map these has resulted in very different patterns. [...]
>
> TR: Again you fail to address what I said. The CMBR _still_ does not
> define any reasonable "local ether frame".
It would appear to be the only plausible candidate for such a frame:
have you another possibility in mind, perhaps?
>
> > > TR: 4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
> > > expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
> > > galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
> > > can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
[....]
You mean it was hotter in times past? So what? A universal standard
of rest relative to a background of radiation is defined only in terms
of a zero dipolar anisotropy: the "temperature" of the radiation is
irrelevant to that. What the temperature actually does is to define a
unique, universal time scale since the Big Bang, on that model.
[...]
Trevor Morris
Tom Roberts
> I
> hope you will agree that "Universal" means literally "of the
> Universe", and I think the CMBR qualifies very well for that
> description.
That is one meaning of the word "universal", but like so many english
words it has several meanings, and that is not really the meaning
it was originally used with. Beware of unacknowledged puns, for they
can destroy any argument.
> how about
> "unique" as a descriptor of the inertial frame defined by zero dipolar
> anisotropy of the CMBR?
Make it _locally_ unique and OK. But then, the rest frame of my
little finger is also locally unique....
> The CMBR rest frame appears to be expanding. This does not affect its
> uniqueness or its local inertial status.
You miss my point entirely. In this context, "frame" is short for
"frame of coordinates implemented with ideal rods and clocks". Such
a frame has the property that every part of it is at rest wrt any
other part. The CMBR "frame" does not possess this property, and
is not really a "frame" at all.
> > TR: That ocean is not a "frame"
> > either. <shrug>
> Why not? Isn't it a frame for sonar waves?
It is not a _FRAME_ at all -- different parts of it are not at rest
wrt other parts of it.
> > The CMBR _still_ does not
> > define any reasonable "local ether frame".
> It would appear to be the only plausible candidate for such a frame:
> have you another possibility in mind, perhaps?
I have no need of _any_ local ether frame. No viable[##] ether theory
has an observable ether frame either.
## "viable" = not already refuted by experiment, except for
the unlikely possibility of some future ether theory which
"lives within the error bars" of existing experiments but
does not belong to the class of theories equivalent to SR.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: [...]
:> : PS:
:> : Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
:>
:> JF: In your dreams. Do you still maintain that
:> an invisible undetectable medium can carry electric
:> and magnetic forces,
:
: excuse me for butting in here, but this remark of yours made me
: curious. Can you tell us about any observable property of these
: fields that is not consistent with the existence of such a medium?
Can it wait till I read more of Einstein's
1907 paper, I was searching for it for 30 or 40 years,
and finally got it in the Princeton Press complete papers.
Gravity is and has been my greatest interest, but
I have been preoccupied, and I am just getting ready to
study that paper.
I mentionedin another article yesterday that
Einstein wrote in that paper "only the conception of
a luminiferous ether as the carrier of the electric
and magnetic forces does not fit into the theory".
This taunts me, and I still can't say it
isn't just his way of making the reading interesting,
he had already written phrases pro and con for LET,
and I am curious where he is going.
: Clue: what property of space is necessary and sufficient to give a
: physical explanation of the Lorentz Transformations and to extend the
: Principle of Relativity to include (at least) electromagnetic
: phenomena?
I am guessing at this time that Einstein is going
to say something about counterelectromotive forces or
reverse reactions that ether probably can't accomodate,
but I am probably wrong as usual.
I will read the 60 page paper from the beginning,
and make notes, even though I am really only interested
in the fifth part about gravity.
As far as the CMBR is concerned, I think needing
a large microwave horn antenna with powerful receivers
is hardly going to reveal anything like a medium that
could resemble the fictitious ether.
:> and also produce the "forces"
:> that you claim are called gravity?
: [...]
:> Joe Fischer
:
: So you disagree with Einstein, too?
: Trevor Morris
I don't what you are referring to with this,
I think I am in total agreement with Einstein on
gravity in that freefall is inertial motion, and
that the Principle of Equivalence postulates that
if gravitational mass were to exist as a separate
entity it would have to be identical to inertial
mass, they are one and the same.
I don't agree with whoever said "spacetime
tells matter how to move".
Joe Fischer
--
3
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>> [about the CMBR dipole=0 frame as a "universal rest frame"]
>> > 1) there is nothing "universal" about it. For instance, inside a
>> > shielded lab it is neither visible nor useful.
>> An Osterich cannot see the world around him when he buries his head in
>> the sand, that does not mean the world does not exist... Great logic
>> here...
>
> You fail to address what I said. In this context, "Universal" means
> essentially everywhere, and if a "universal" something can be excluded
> from a region of space then it is not very universal. It is not I "who
> buries his head in the sand", it is _THE_CMBR_.
Are you a lawyer 'on the side'? Definitely s Sophist remark. Universal
as I use the term is,
"4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic."
per,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/U0087800.html
>> > 2) it is not a "frame" in the usual sense of _inertial_ frame, or
>> > even in the much weaker sense of being a _single_ frame -- the
>> > earth is moving rapidly wrt distant galaxies, which are observed
>> > to be approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located.
>> A fish sits peacefully motionless in the Gulf Stream, which is moving
>> wrt the mid-Atlantic region, so what. That's normal in any any medium
>
> Again you fail to address what I said. That ocean is not a "frame"
> either. <shrug>
Then it is you, not I that,
"does not respond to what you write, but rather to his personal
prejudices and dreams about what the world "really" looks like"
since I consistently talk in terms of a physical medium, and have discussed
this particular issue with you before... Sorry Charlie, the local region
of any medium can be defined as a frame.
>> > 3) the CMBR doesn't define any reasonable "local ether frame" [...]
>> Yup, and those 'multi-poles' aren't fixed in space. Every attempt to
>> map these has resulted in very different patterns. [...]
>
> Again you fail to address what I said. The CMBR _still_ does not
> define any reasonable "local ether frame".
You're almost alone in this particular 'interpetation'.
>> > 4) for the CMBR to be useful as a "universal" standard, one would
>> > expect its properties to be the same everywhere, but for distant
>> > galaxies it is significantly hotter than it is near earth -- how
>> > can one consider it to be "universal" when it varies so much???
>>
>> In any rather vast region of 'real space', at this instant, it is a
>> great standard by which to measure all motion.
>
> Except, of course, for the fact that things at rest wrt the CMBR
> are moving relative to other things at rest wrt the CMBR. Not a
> very good "standard".
How much of a region must one consider before this becomes noticable?
>> > 5) and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the CMBR
>> > as a reference -- the object must be immersed in the CMBR.
>
>> Where can a scientist find such 'empty space' out there?
>
> It was not I who brought up the issue of "empty space".
Really, you said "and, of course, no object in "empty space" can use the
CMBR as a reference". Seems to me (and probably others) that you did
bring it up.
> Paul Stowe is a good example of someone whose "personal opinions sound
> so loud in his ears that he cannot hear anyone else [attribution lost]".
> Attempting to converse with him is almost impossible, because he does
> not respond to what you write, but rather to his personal prejudices
> and dreams about what the world "really" looks like.
Well, at least I don't spout out silly irrational excuses because I wish
to deny the obvious.
Paul Stowe
Joe Fischer
: [...]
:> : PS:
:> : Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
:>
:> JF: In your dreams. Do you still maintain that
:> an invisible undetectable medium can carry electric
:> and magnetic forces,
:
: excuse me for butting in here, but this remark of yours made me
: curious. Can you tell us about any observable property of these
: fields that is not consistent with the existence of such a medium?
: Clue: what property of space is necessary and sufficient to give a
: physical explanation of the Lorentz Transformations and to extend the
: Principle of Relativity to include (at least) electromagnetic
: phenomena?
: So you disagree with Einstein, too?
: Trevor Morris
For anyone interested, volume 2 of the Princeton Press
comlete papers has the writings of Albert Einstein for the
years 1900-1909, I have the Anna Beck English translation,
but if you read German, I think there are more footnotes, etc.
I consider many of these papers to contain information
that when all assembled, totally destroys any idea of an ether
or medium being the carrier of the electric and magnetic
character of light.
It seems like Planck provided the ideas for Einstein
to use in calculating the energy transfers needed to cause
light quanta to generate electrons in a material, and the
amount of light energy an applied voltage will produce.
This line of thought begins in the 1905 paper on
the production and transformation of light, and scientists
of the time could not possibly have argued for an ether
as the carrier of light in view of these writings.
The 1907 paper on a review of relativity with
conclusions continues the wiping away of any thought
of a light medium, but it is all too involved for me
to try to present in notes or quotes.
If anyone is still so deluded to think that
all scientists are wrong in accepting relativity and
discarding the ether as the carrier of light, maybe
somebody more capable could respond to specific points,
there is a lot of math involved.
Part of it involves the amount of energy that
could result from all possibly frequencies being
present, and if I understand it correctly, a medium
would allow the energy to go to infinity.
It is the fact that light is it's own medium,
with the energy transported quanta by quanta, that
avoids such problems.
An experimenter named Lenard apparently was
the source of much of the data used by Einstein in
doing these calculations.
And there are so many arguments supporting
the quanta theory and destroying the medium theory,
it is obvious that the LET could not survive.
I think it is unfortunate that nearly 100 years
later, people are reverting back to the simplistic
approach of a medium as the carrier of light, ignoring
the quantum approach.
These two concepts are not compatible in any
way, and it is unfortunate that the deluded are not
intelligent enough to search for the truth, by looking
for facts that prove their delusion faulty, by rather
discard all evidence provided by well meaning people
to help sort out the truth.
While light appears to have the properties of
both wave and particle, it is not possible for the
carrier of light to be anything other than individual
quanta photons.
This is not something that scientists should
have to argue forever, Einstein provided all the
arguments along with the data from the experiments,
with all the references, with due credit given.
I would hope Paul Stowe can obtain the papers
from 1905, 1906 and 1907, and read them with the
objective of eliminating any self misconceptions,
as no other person can do this for him.
My reason for mentioning this is to suggest
that a medium is even less capable of producing
gravity than it is of carrying light.
Any medium will have disturbances left
after interactions, and the energy of these
disturbances will dissipate with a time period
that is a function of the amount of energy, and
there is nothing in gravity that acts like that.
A particle stream or flow is different
from a medium, light is carried by a particle
stream, but the nature of gravity is not at all
producible by a particle stream or flow of even
moderate energy, let alone the gravitational
interactions of stellar sized bodies.
The CMBR is a particle stream or flow
from all directions, with it's origin only
a matter of conjecture, it could be the result
of a Big Bang, or it could be (my conjecture)
simply starlight from a great distance away,
redshifted so that only the energy from stars
within a certain range of distance is the
right frequency to be picked up by the microwave
antenna.
In any case, the CMBR is not a medium,
it carries nothing but itself, it was visible
light or higher frequency at one time, and
is now just low energy photons.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Paul Stowe
Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <9mtgui$adr$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <bjrowe-38F4B1....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>,
>> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Let me understand your logic. Tom's comments make the point the CMBR
>>> cannot be as a referece for velocity when it cannot be observed. Seems
>>> to me that is quite reasonable and logical. It is not at all equivalent
>>> to saying the CMBR doesn't exist as suggeted by your response.
>
>> You reasoning is no better than Tom's it seems. A submarine cannot 'see'
>> the world around it 'inside' of the hull. But I assure you the Navy has
>> been able to figure out than by using the acoustical information from the
>> surrounding medium its subs can use this as a 'reference frame' from which
>> to mount effective combat operations and gain information such as speed of
>> itself and other vessels.
>
> And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
> the example of detecting CMBR inside a screen room. ...
Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to do this as
a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR inside of a shielded
enclosure. Let me say, I have P&W paper and they did not...
>...In your example, the submarine can and does detect things external to
> it via sound. That enables the Navy to compute speed relative to those things.
Very good, let put you in for a commendation for realizing the obvious point
of my paragraph above. So Bill isn't sounds a 'universal' (as in, exists
everywhere) feature of Earth's oceans?
> Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
> insided a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
> radiation.
Again, has this every actually been attempted? I don't know whether it can
or cannot be unless it has been experimentally ruled out.
> Note the inability to do this doesn't mean one cannot measure speed
> relative to something else nor does it mean CMBR doesn't exist. It merely
> shows CMBR cannot be used as an universal reference, which is the point Tom
> Roberts made.
This statement makes no sense, where in interstellar space is the CMBR not
available to be seen, if of course one doesn't deliberately refuse to take
advantage of this information?
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts
> Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to do this as
> a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR inside of a shielded
> enclosure.
A good Faraday cage will shield one from a 100 kilowatt radar transmitter
across the street, taking its signal from several Volts to undetectible
at the most sensitive setting of the oscilloscope, which was probably
1 mV/cm. This is not a published experiment, but merely our observations
working on electronics in our lab at Univ. of Michigan. This cage was
about 3'x3'x4' with a door about 2.5' square in one side and several
holes for cables; opening the door brought the radar noise to a few tens
of mV, IIRC, so even an imperfect cage has a significant attennuation.
> [measuring CMBR inside a shileded room]
> Again, has this every actually been attempted? I don't know whether it can
> or cannot be unless it has been experimentally ruled out.
It's hopeless to observe the CMBR inside a well-shielded room. It's
rather remarkable that Penzias and Wilson could observe it inside
earth's atmosphere.
> > CMBR cannot be used as an universal reference, which is the point Tom
> > Roberts made.
> This statement makes no sense, where in interstellar space is the CMBR not
> available to be seen, if of course one doesn't deliberately refuse to take
> advantage of this information?
There is more to the world than just interstellar space.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Now if you ask yourself "How fast would
> I have to move toward the cooler CMB so that the doppler shift
> made everything isotropic?", the answer is about 600 km/s,
Your number is off. COBE measured it to be 370 km/sec. Note this merely
makes the dipole moment of the CMBR be zero; higher multipoles are
small but nonzero.
> This velocity of 600 km/s is more than 100 times the velocity of
> the Earth relative to the Sun,
Again your number is off. The earth's orbital velocity wrt the sun is
about 30 km/sec, so this ratio is a factor of 12, not "> 100".
These minor errors in the details do not affect your argument.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Steve Carlip
> The CMBR rest frame appears to be expanding. This does not
> affect its uniqueness or its local inertial status.
As usual in general relativity, this depends on what you mean by
``local.'' For example, in the absence of any forces, two objects
that are initially each at rest with respect to the CMBR will start
to move away from each other. The frame is still ``locally inertial''
in the GR sense that this motion can be made arbitrarily small by
starting in a small enough region and looking at a small enough
time. But it's certainly not ``inertial'' in the SR or Galilean sense.
(Of course, even this is true only if you're in deep space, far away
from any gravitating masses. A locally inertial frame near the
surface of the Earth is a freely falling frame, and that certainly
is not moving at a constant velocity relative to the CMBR frame.)
Steve Carlip
Joe Fischer
:Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
:
: Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to do this as
: a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR inside of a shielded
: enclosure. Let me say, I have P&W paper and they did not...
Do you thing the antenna would receive any CMBR photons
if pointed down (it was a folded horn).
:> Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
:> insided a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
:> radiation.
:
: Again, has this every actually been attempted? I don't know whether it can
: or cannot be unless it has been experimentally ruled out.
Microwaves are reduced to supposedly safe by the oven door.
: This statement makes no sense, where in interstellar space is the CMBR not
: available to be seen, if of course one doesn't deliberately refuse to take
: advantage of this information?
: Paul Stowe
I haven't attempted the measurement, but would you
be willing to forget about ether if it can't be detected
passing through the Earth?
Joe Fischer
--
3
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : Mon, 03 Sep 2001
According to AY275: Radio Astronomy: Courses notes (I don't have the
exact reference),
"The most recent (COBE) measurement of the dipole suggests that we
are moving at 371 +-1 km/s, though correcting for the Earth's circular
motion around the Milky Way (and other local group motions) suggests
that the whole local group is moving at 600 km/s relative to the CMBR frame."
Marcel Luttgens
Trevor Morris
> Trevor Morris wrote:
> > I
> > hope you will agree that "Universal" means literally "of the
> > Universe", and I think the CMBR qualifies very well for that
> > description.
>
> That is one meaning of the word "universal", but like so many english
> words it has several meanings,
In this context, that will do for me.
[...]
>
> > > The CMBR _still_ does not
> > > define any reasonable "local ether frame".
> > It would appear to be the only plausible candidate for such a frame:
> > have you another possibility in mind, perhaps?
>
> I have no need of _any_ local ether frame. No viable[##] ether theory
> has an observable ether frame either.
>
> ## "viable" = not already refuted by experiment, except for
> the unlikely possibility of some future ether theory which
> "lives within the error bars" of existing experiments but
> does not belong to the class of theories equivalent to SR.
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
You have decided you do not need a unique frame of reference for light
propagation, but that does not preclude the existence of such a frame,
nor its identification with the obvious candidate. As to viable
theories, the sole property needed for the unique frame of reference
in an "ether" theory delivering Special Relativity is that it sets an
upper limit for all propagation of matter and radiation in vacuo,
namely the speed of light. (There is no conflict with that hypothesis
if the frame happens to be expanding or contracting.) No such basic
feature of an "ether" theory has been refuted by any experiment, to my
knowledge. If you know of such an experiment, please enlighten us.
Trevor Morris
Stephen Speicher
>
> An your 'objective' measure of intellect is what? Have you
> given us both a standardized test by which to make your
> judgement, or have you jumped to an subjective conclusion based
> upon ONLY what you read of usenet posts. If it is the latter,
> you demonstrate very poor judgement indeed.
>
The writings by Paul Stowe and Tom Roberts on this newsgroup _is_
evidence of at least two essential things; their repsective
knowledge of physics -- relativity in particular -- and their
respective reasoning abilities. These two essentials are
communicated in each and every post that both Paul and Tom write.
One's intellect is generally characterized by the extent of one's
knowledge, and one's ability to form wide-ranging concepts, using
a process of reason. With this criteria in mind, the difference
in intellect between Paul and Tom, as demonstrated by their
writings here, is startling.
Paul's posts are generally characterized by strong emotional
appeal, expressions ranging from mild annoyance to outright
rants; sloppy formulations which stand in place of reasoned
argument. Tom's posts, by contrast, are reasoned presentations of
fact, characterized by a striving for precision of thought and
terminology.
Paul has repeatedly been willing to embrace experiments which he
has neither read nor understood. For example, Paul offered De
Witte's experiment as evidence never having seen the paper, which
fact was revealed when I challenged him about a factual matter
from the De Witte paper I had. By contrast, Tom continually
exhibits the highest regard for fact before he offers
experimental evidence in support of any view. Not only has Tom
demonstrated a vast knowledge of relevant experiments, but his
various synopses of such exhibit an excellent grasp of the
content.
So, Paul Stowe, there is nothing subjective in my conclusion that
there is a startling difference in intellect between you and Tom.
Such a conclusion would be reached by any objective reader of the
various posts written by you and Tom. The evidence is clear, and
objective. If you want to imply that you are a completely
different kind of person away from this group, then you are
certainly free to do so. However, it strains one's imagination to
think that the sloppy, imprecise thinking which you exhibit here,
along with your penchant for accepting evidence with disregard
for fact -- as long as it suits your purpose -- should somehow
evaporate and that you are a clear, precise reasoner elsewhere. A
bit hard to swallow.
>
> Let's boil this down to basics, you cannot logically defend the
> points made by Tom, fine.
>
This is the flip side of what _every_ kook here has said, at one
time or another: If you don't refute me, that is proof you
cannot. A hallmark of the deluded mind -- to mistake lack of
interest, for victory.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rowe
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <bjrowe-797A09....@news.earthlink.net>,
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
>> the example of detecting CMBR inside a screen room. ...
>Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to do this as
>a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR inside of a shielded
>enclosure.
Do you truly believe it is not possible to design and build a screen
room such that the CMBR cannot be detected within it?
>>...In your example, the submarine can and does detect things external to
>> it via sound. That enables the Navy to compute speed relative to those
>> things.
>Very good, let put you in for a commendation for realizing the obvious point
>of my paragraph above. So Bill isn't sounds a 'universal' (as in, exists
>everywhere) feature of Earth's oceans?
Do you understand the difference between "universal" as you use it hear
and the way it was used by Roberts? That difference is why your example
of a submarine simply isn't applicable.
>> Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
>> insided a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
>> radiation.
>Again, has this every actually been attempted? I don't know whether it can
>or cannot be unless it has been experimentally ruled out.
Again, do you truly believe it is not possible to build such screen
rooms?
>> Note the inability to do this doesn't mean one cannot measure speed
>> relative to something else nor does it mean CMBR doesn't exist. It merely
>> shows CMBR cannot be used as an universal reference, which is the point Tom
>> Roberts made.
>This statement makes no sense, where in interstellar space is the CMBR not
>available to be seen, if of course one doesn't deliberately refuse to take
>advantage of this information?
The CMBR won't be observable in a screen room.
Look CMBR is nothing more than short hand for a microwave radiation
around 56 GHz. It is quite easy to shield against such radiation. If
that were not the case, there would be more than a few electronic
devices that would not work nearly as well as they do.
I simply do not comprehend why you seem to think the CMBR will be
observable everywhere. Also, note this was only one of the reasons Tom
Roberts pointed out the CMBR isn't an universal reference frame. I
merely chose this item to comment on since it was the first he listed
and your response about ostriches seemed particularly innane.
Rod Ryker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
Rod: Stephen , I do not think you are equipt to judge .
Using the Lorentz equation : L=L0*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ,
which is the length contraction equation , I
shall write out an example :
A rod with the proper length of 15 metres(L0) , propagates at v=.5c
as observed by the rest system .
L=L0*sqrt(c^2/c^2-v^2/c^2) ,
c^2 v^2
L=L0*sqrt----------( - )----------
c^2 c^2
.75
L=L0*sqrt----- = .75
1
L=L0*sqrt(.75) =
L=15*.866 =
L=12.99 metres
1. L is the end result observed length by the rest system ,
and this is equal to
2. L0 the proper length of the rod in the primed system ,
multiplied by the sqrt of
3. the rest systems observation of
(c/c)^2-(v/c)^2 .
4. This results in the length of the rod
being contracted as observed by the rest system .
What justifies using the proper length of the rod
of the primed system ?
In LET , the rods length contracts physically in (both) systems ,
but is not noticed by the comoving observer .
In Einstein Relativity , this length contraction is merely an illusion
as observed from the rest system .
IOW's the proper length of the LET rod in the primed-
system is the contracted length and not the length before
the rod was put in relative motion .
So , the proper length in LET , using the above example ,
should be 12.99 metres .
This is so because the observer in the primed system
knows he is moving and not the rest system and he
knows as well as the rest system obsevers that his rods length and
measuring stick are both length contracted so he applys the
Lorentz Equation above .
Therefore ,
L=12.99*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) =
L=11.24 metres as observed by the rest system observer .
Rod Ryker
Paul Stowe
Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <9n08ee$d7i$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <bjrowe-797A09....@news.earthlink.net>,
>> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> And I suppose you cannot "see" the differenc between your example and
>>> the example of detecting CMBR inside a screen room. ...
>
>>Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to do this as
>>a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR inside of a shielded
>>enclosure.
>
> Do you truly believe it is not possible to design and build a screen
> room such that the CMBR cannot be detected within it?
It is quite possible, and easy to build a shielded enclosure...
>>>...In your example, the submarine can and does detect things external to
>>> it via sound. That enables the Navy to compute speed relative to those
>>> things.
>
>> Very good, let put you in for a commendation for realizing the obvious point
>> of my paragraph above. So Bill isn't sounds a 'universal' (as in, exists
>> everywhere) feature of Earth's oceans?
>
> Do you understand the difference between "universal" as you use it hear
> and the way it was used by Roberts? That difference is why your example
> of a submarine simply isn't applicable.
>
>>> Now explain to me how it is you propose to meaure speed relative to CMBR
>>> insided a screen room specifically designed shield against microwave
>>> radiation.
>
>> Again, has this every actually been attempted? I don't know whether it can
>> or cannot be unless it has been experimentally ruled out.
>
> A gain, do you truly believe it is not possible to build such screen
> rooms?
Again NO. In fact I know one can easily establish such a condition. My question
was quite simple and abundantly clear.
"Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to
do this as a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR
inside of a shielded enclosure."
Now what is hard about understanding this question? There either is, or is
not, such a baseline test.
>>> Note the inability to do this doesn't mean one cannot measure speed
>>> relative to something else nor does it mean CMBR doesn't exist. It merely
>>> shows CMBR cannot be used as an universal reference, which is the point Tom
>>> Roberts made.
>
>> This statement makes no sense, where in interstellar space is the CMBR not
>> available to be seen, if of course one doesn't deliberately refuse to take
>> advantage of this information?
>
> The CMBR won't be observable in a screen room.
If the test asked for above has actually been done and documented then I will
agree with this. If not, scientifically one cannot make such a claim for such
is without factual basis. It very well may be true, but it remains in the
realm of supposition. It could be that something in the antenna itself causes
the CMBR to be seen, but likely not. However, without such a baseline we simply
don't know, thus the above question.
> Look CMBR is nothing more than short hand for a microwave radiation
> around 56 GHz. It is quite easy to shield against such radiation. If
> that were not the case, there would be more than a few electronic
> devices that would not work nearly as well as they do.
Hmmm, wasn't that 'the problem' that P & W was attempting to identify and
eliminate?
> I simply do not comprehend why you seem to think the CMBR will be
> observable everywhere. Also, note this was only one of the reasons Tom
> Roberts pointed out the CMBR isn't an universal reference frame. I
> merely chose this item to comment on since it was the first he listed
> and your response about ostriches seemed particularly innane.
I never claimed it would. I simply asked a question. The definitive answer to
which will answer whether or not the CMBR 'could' be seen in an enclosed space.
I do not proport to 'know' the answer to this, otherwise why would I need to
ask...
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts
> I say the observational
> evidence for space expanding between distant and local galactic groups and
> clusters while leaving their internal spacing untouched is non existant,
> bordering on black magic and obvious smoke blowing, and until you can show
> otherwise in a convincing manner, without mathmatics that cannot be translated
> into plain English, everything else you say in my opinion is suspect!
Stated simply: the model is that space is expanding _EVERYWHERE_, not just
"between distant and local galactic groups". But for any bound system,
including those "galactic groups", the Lagrangian describing the interaction
which binds them does NOT change. So the intrinsic size of such bound
systems remains the same, even though space is expanding where they are and
within them -- the binding forces ensure this is so.
As for observational evidence, there is no doubt whatsoever that light from
distant galaxies is highly redshifted, and is approximately the same for
galaxies at the same distance independent of direction from earth. The best
model which fits not only this observation but LOTS of other observations
is that space is expanding; see a good cosmology textbook for details
(or Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> the cmbr [...] in fact is the long sought "aether"
It cannot be: inside a shielded enclosure there is no CMBR, but light
propagates just fine.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> If the test asked for above has actually been done and documented then I will
> agree with this. If not, scientifically one cannot make such a claim for such
> is without factual basis. It very well may be true, but it remains in the
> realm of supposition. It could be that something in the antenna itself causes
> the CMBR to be seen, but likely not. However, without such a baseline we simply
> don't know, thus the above question.
With that attitude, one cannot "scientifically" claim that jumping off a
100-story building onto the sidewalk will kill a given person, because THAT
SPECIFIC PERSON has never been "tested", and "without such a baseline we
simply don't know".
While there is good reason to be sceptical of "common-sense" arguments like
the above, your attitude toward science is hopeless.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> You have decided you do not need a unique frame of reference for light
> propagation, but that does not preclude the existence of such a frame,
> nor its identification with the obvious candidate.
No. As I have said rather often around here (but in different ways).
But it is impossible to establish its existence _experimentally_.
> As to viable
> theories, the sole property needed for the unique frame of reference
> in an "ether" theory delivering Special Relativity is that it sets an
> upper limit for all propagation of matter and radiation in vacuo,
> namely the speed of light.
Not true. In order to remain consistent with the MMX and its many
successors, a viable ether theory must predict that the round-trip
speed of light in _ANY_ inertial frame will be measured to be
isotropically c. This then brings one to the equivalence class of
theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Your "sole
property" is insufficient to establish this necessry criterion, but it
is obeyed by every theory of that class..
As I said before, there remains the unlikely possibility that in
the future someone will construct a viable ether theory which
"lives in the error bars" of these experiments, but does not
belong to that equivalence class.
> No such basic
> feature of an "ether" theory has been refuted by any experiment, to my
> knowledge. If you know of such an experiment, please enlighten us.
No refutation has ever been made of ANY member of the class of ether
theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, within their
domain of applicability. This of course applies to SR as well.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Gerry Quinn
>Stated simply: the model is that space is expanding _EVERYWHERE_, not just
>"between distant and local galactic groups". But for any bound system,
>including those "galactic groups", the Lagrangian describing the interaction
>which binds them does NOT change. So the intrinsic size of such bound
>systems remains the same, even though space is expanding where they are and
>within them -- the binding forces ensure this is so.
Hang on a moment - what exactly do you mean when you say "space is
expanding between two gravitationally (or otherwise) bound objects"
when:
1. The distance between them is not increasing, and
2. No work is being done by the binding forces.
>As for observational evidence, there is no doubt whatsoever that light from
>distant galaxies is highly redshifted, and is approximately the same for
>galaxies at the same distance independent of direction from earth. The best
>model which fits not only this observation but LOTS of other observations
>is that space is expanding; see a good cosmology textbook for details
>(or Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ).
But is it a model, or a tautology?
Proposition 1: two galaxies are not moving (our choice of coordinates)
Proposition 2: the distance between them is increasing (inferred from
red shift observations)
Conclusion: space is expanding.
But you can hardly call it a "model". You haven't described anything
that 'causes' the redshift. You just chose coordinates in which space
is expanding. The physical content of a coordinate choice is zero.
- Gerry Quinn
Joe Fischer
:Somebody stated without knowing all the facts:
:> No such basic
:> feature of an "ether" theory has been refuted by any experiment, to my
:> knowledge. If you know of such an experiment, please enlighten us.
:
: No refutation has ever been made of ANY member of the class of ether
: theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, within their
: domain of applicability. This of course applies to SR as well.
Just in case you don't have the complete papers
collection, I just want to let you know that I am finding
more papers by Einstein where he says essentially "The
ether does not work", and gives equations with references
to Planck and Lenard, and asks for experiments to test
several different tests to prove ether doesn't work.
I would think if he continued this effort (I only
have search up until 1909 for this line of thought), he
surely would have convinced applied physicists to do
the tests, and his efforts should have greatly advanced
quantum theory.
A theorist's most important job is devising valid
experiments that need to be performed, and it appears
that Einstein asked for experiments in many papers,
and we know some requests resulted in very important
discoveries as those experiments were performed.
As an aside, a paper in 1905 before the two
SR basis papers contained language that sounds like
Einstein predicted or postulated single quanta light
(photon) propagation, which I thought Planck did,
but Einstein gives Planck credit for something related,
and for some equations.
They both continued to promote quantum theory,
Einstein did so with statements that single quanta
fits with relativity, while quanta will not work
with ether.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dwhig265 wrote:
> > the cmbr [...] in fact is the long sought "aether"
>
> It cannot be: inside a shielded enclosure there is no CMBR, but light
> propagates just fine.
Hey Tom, that's a good one ;-)
Dirk Vdm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> >Stated simply: the model is that space is expanding _EVERYWHERE_, not
just
> >"between distant and local galactic groups". But for any bound system,
> >including those "galactic groups", the Lagrangian describing the
interaction
> >which binds them does NOT change. So the intrinsic size of such bound
> >systems remains the same, even though space is expanding where they are
and
> >within them -- the binding forces ensure this is so.
>
> Hang on a moment - what exactly do you mean when you say "space is
> expanding between two gravitationally (or otherwise) bound objects"
> when:
> 1. The distance between them is not increasing, and
> 2. No work is being done by the binding forces.
Do you see the very beginning of his statement? "The model is..." Doesn't
say he agrees with it...
David A. Smith
Bill Rowe
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <bjrowe-EDB603....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>,
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> A gain, do you truly believe it is not possible to build such screen
>> rooms?
>Again NO. In fact I know one can easily establish such a condition.
>My question was quite simple and abundantly clear.
> "Can anyone point me to an experiment that actually attempted to
> do this as a baseline control??? That is, detect the CMBR
> inside of a shielded enclosure."
If you know that it is possible to build a screen room to shield against
microwave then you must know an attempt to detect the CMBR inside a such
a shielded enclosure will have a null result, i.e., no detection of the
DMBR. In short, if you know it is possible to build such screen rooms
your question is pointless. Further this demonstrates quite clearly at
least one reason the CMBR cannot be a universal reference frame.
>Now what is hard about understanding this question?
Nothing. It is simply a pointless question given you know screen rooms
that can shield against microwave radiation of the same frequency as the
CMBR is possible. In fact, this demostrates such experiements have been
implicitly done even if the specific goal wasn't to measure the CMBR in
a screen room.
>> The CMBR won't be observable in a screen room.
>
>If the test asked for above has actually been done and documented then I will
>agree with this.
Look. It is simple. Either you believe what you wrote above or you
don't. If you believe it is possible to build shielded enclosures that
can effectively screen agains microwave radiation around 50-60 GHz, then
you also know the outcome of the test you are proposing.
It appears your position i.e. suggesting a test to detect the CMBR is
meaningful is in direct conflict with your statement you know such
screen rooms can be built.
>If not, scientifically one cannot make such a claim for such
>is without factual basis. It very well may be true, but it remains in the
>realm of supposition.
This is simply ridiculous. If the claim that you cannot observe the CMBR
inside a screen room designed to shield against CMBR is supposition, it
must also be supposition that such screen rooms can be built. The same
factual basis that convinces you such screen rooms can be built and have
been built ought to also convince you that the CMBR isn't observable
inside them.
>> I simply do not comprehend why you seem to think the CMBR will be
>> observable everywhere. Also, note this was only one of the reasons Tom
>> Roberts pointed out the CMBR isn't an universal reference frame. I
>> merely chose this item to comment on since it was the first he listed
>> and your response about ostriches seemed particularly innane.
>I never claimed it would.
Fine. If it is not observable everywhere than Tom Roberts first point is
quite valid. That is you cannot measure velocity relative to something
you cannot observe. So, if the CMBR is not observable everywhere, it
cannot be a universal (as in everywhere available) reference frame.
This is simple logic.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
There is an old saying associated with Law, if you have the facts
on your side argue the facts, if you have the law on your side argue
the law, if you have neither the facts or the law on your side pound
the table and attack the witness's credibility and character.
Note two things Stephen, I neither remove people's comments from
replies (even negative ones), nor generally resort to ad hominem
attacks. I have on occasion been provoked into responding
emotionally to direct personal insults, but in large, accept that
this will happen when someone doesn't like the message, they tend
to want to shoot the messenger...
Nothing is relevant to this particular discussion except the issue
of the viablity of the CMBR being a preferential means by which to
gauge the magnitude and direction of moving of objects through
'real space'. As for Tom's so-called "empty space", well that does
not exist in our universe.
As to the claim, "If you don't refute me, that is proof you cannot.
A hallmark of the deluded mind -- to mistake lack of interest, for
victory.", if there truly was a lack of interest, you would never
have entered into this exchange. In fact, you felt it was your
duty to come to the defense of Tom precisely because you know that
the reasoning presented is otherwise indefensible, within the scope
of this discussion. If that perceived threat did not exist, you
simply would not have bothered.
Since you do not wish to dispute the rebutal of Tom's points, nuff
said... since that is ALL that is relevant to the discussion in
this thread.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
>
> As to the claim, "If you don't refute me, that is proof you
> cannot. A hallmark of the deluded mind -- to mistake lack of
> interest, for victory."...
The form of this quote could be confusing; here is what I said.
"This is the flip side of what _every_ kook here has
said, at one time or another: If you don't refute me,
that is proof you cannot. A hallmark of the deluded
mind -- to mistake lack of interest, for victory."
> ...if there truly was a lack of interest, you would
> never have entered into this exchange.
>
I "entered into this exchange" to address Paul Stowe's
ludicrous and absurd remarks that Tom Roberts was
acting out of "desperation," and "irrationally." I long
ago gave up expecting to have a rational and worthwhile
discussion of physics with Paul Stowe.
> In fact, you felt it was your duty to come to the defense of
> Tom precisely because you know that the reasoning presented is
> otherwise indefensible, within the scope of this discussion.
> If that perceived threat did not exist, you simply would not
> have bothered.
>
Thanks to Paul Stowe for so clearly demonstrating the sort of
delusion which usually accompanies the arguments of the kook.
Gerry Quinn
True, but he says it's the best!
- Gerry Quinn
MLuttgens
In the simplest form of the paradox, Terence stays on Earth,
whereas Stella leaves the Earth at .99 c during one of her years
(her outward trip), makes an instantaneous turnarond and goes
back to Terence at the same velocity of .99 c (her return trip).
SR ANALYSIS
(Cf. Tim Shuba's analysis in "The Twin paradox falsifies SR
(was Re: Some silly questions about SR)")
According to SR, all inertial frames are equivalent, hence the times
measured on Earth by Terence for Stella's outward and return
trips shoud be the same, whether the reference frame is the
Earth (called hereafter the Earth frame) or the frame in which
Stella is at rest during her outward trip (called hereafter the
outbound frame).
This is not the case. Indeed, the durations of Stella's trips (read
on Terence's clock), vary according to the chosen reference frame:
1. Earth frame
Stella's outward trip: 7.0888 years
Stella's return trip: 7.0888 years
Duration of the whole journey: 14.1776 years
2. Outbound frame
Stella's outward trip: .1411 year
Stella's return trip: 14.0365 years.
Duration of the whole journey: 14.1776 years
Clearly, the duration of the one-way trips is frame-dependent,
in contradiction with SR's main postulate.
We will see hereafter that the contradiction is entirely due to
the fact that SR considers only relative motion, hence ignores the
physical consequences of a change of reference frame.
LET ANALYSIS
"If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
excellent candidate."
(Eric Prebys, Physics Department, Princeton University)
Using LET without the ROS (relativity of simultaneity) to analyse
the Twin paradox, I have demonstrated (in "A LET analysis of the
Twin paradox") that the outward and return trips of Stella are a function
not only of her velocity v wrt the Earth, but also of the "absolute" Earth
velocity V, measured via an observed dipole in the CMBR.
The obtained LET relation is t(one-way) = t(round-trip) * (1+Vv)/2,
where t(round-trip) = 2t / sqrt(1-v^2), t being the duration of Stella's
one-way trips measured on her watch, i.e. 1 year, whereas
t(one-way) and t(round-trip) are times observed by Terence.
It should be noted that t(round-trip) is independent of V, the velocity
of the Earth through space. For instance, if v = +- .99 c and t=1 year,
t(round-trip) = 2/sqrt(1-.99^2) = 14.1776 years, which is the duration
of the whole journey of Stella according to Terence.
We shall now consider the two cases that correspond to the Earth
frame and the outbound frame of the above SR analysis, i.e. the
cases where V=0 and V=.99 c.
Stella's velocity v is of course - .99 c during her outward trip and
+ .99 c during her return trip.
1. The Earth is at rest wrt the CMBR (V=0)
The formula giving the one-way times reduces to t(one-way) =
t(round-trip) / 2, or 14.1776 years / 2, hence
Stella's outward trip: 7.0888 years
Stella's return trip: 7.0888 years
Duration of the whole journey: 14.1776 years
The LET results are identical to those obtained with SR using the
Earth frame. This means that SR's claim according to which only
relative motions have to be taken into consideration is wrong. Indeed,
SR analysis is correct only if the Earth is at rest wrt the CMBR.
2. The Earth is moving at V=.99 c wrt the CMBR
The duration of Stella's outward trip is (14.1776 / 2) * (1+ (.99 * - .99)) =
.1411 year, and the duration of her return trip is (14.1776 / 2) *
(1+ (.99 * + .99)) = 14.0365 years, Iow
Stella's outward trip: .1411 year
Stella's return trip: 14.0365 years
Duration of the whole journey: 14.1776 years
What a coincidence! Terence's times are exactly those obtained
by SR using the outbound frame!
So, in fact, the choice of the outbound frame physically implies
that Stella is still moving at - .99 c wrt the the Earth, but the Earth
is moving at V = .99 c wrt the CMBR.
Iow, it implies that Stella is at rest wrt the CMBR!
The physical situation is thus wholly different between the two frames.
The use of the Earth frame implies an Earth at "absolute" rest,
whereas the Earth moves at V = .99 c when the outbound frame is
chosen as the reference frame.
In conclusion, with LET, there is no contradiction at all. The contradiction
exists only with SR. SR is clearly conceptually false.
The SRists should realize that their so-called change of frame is not
physically neutral.
They should also realize that the ROS doesn't apply in concrete
situations. If it did, the LET analysis would not have obtained
the same results as SR.
Iow, the validity of the ROS is falsified by the Twin paradox.
The answer to the question "SR or LET what difference does it
make???" is straightforward, LET is physically correct, SR is
conceptually wrong
Marcel Luttgens
Spaceman
"MLuttgens" <mlut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010905090646...@nso-cl.aol.com...
<snipped crap and substitute woth reality.>
Stella and Terrance were both watched and timed for existance
by a third observer. <LOL>
the third observer stated that both
Stella and Terrance existed the same exact amount of time
and the clocks that Stella and Terrance have and watch,
don't mean crap.
Both twins existed the exact same amount of time,
for the experiment.
Clocks don't tell Universal time/existance,
they only guess at it and when in motion thier guesses become
currupt.
A third clock always proves so.
Tom Roberts
> THE TWIN PARADOX FALSIFIES SR
No. This merely refutes MLuttgens' MISunderstanding of SR. As has been
said many time around here. See my other responses to him for a detailed
exposure of his errors.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Clocks don't tell Universal time/existance,
> they only guess at it and when in motion thier guesses become
> currupt.
> A third clock always proves so.
Do you ever actually read what you write? That "third clock" is in
general also "in motion", and so is "currupt"....
Nobody except you is talking about "universal time/existence" -- as is
well known, in SR there is _NO_ universal time.
You seem to be trying to discuss "time" independent of clocks; so far
you have failed, and the fact that nobody else has ever managed to do
so indicates you are extremely unlikely to be able to do so either.
Note this is no problem for _PHYSICS_, because in physics clocks are
all we have, and time _IS_ what clocks measure and nothing more.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Spaceman
> Note this is no problem for _PHYSICS_, because in physics clocks are
> all we have, and time _IS_ what clocks measure and nothing more.
Then you fool yourself against the basic laws of physics.
You have no clue what time is either.,
Thanks for playing the
"I'm a stupid monkey that believes time exists as a reality."
game with me.
You said it first,
you lose,.
I don't believe in time being a reality like you give it.
It's a clock's motion and nothing more.
You are fooled by a simple mechanical device,
into believing it's counting something other
than it's own internal motions.
You are a silly monkey.
and a jerk,
screw off Tom
I read things,
and learn,
you just read and ignore it seems.
Too bad.
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : Wed, 05 Sep 2001
Your reaction is pityful. Show one error, if you are honest, instead of
referring to imaginary responses. But you can't, because the SR
analysis was made by Tim Shuba, a SR expert, and my LET analysis
gives exactly the same numerical results, while giving them a
physical explanation, what SR, a purely geometrical and mathematical
theory, is unable to do.
Your tactic is similar to that of well known propagandists, who used
simple-minded slogans and half-truths, in order to avoid the need
for serious arguments.
Marcel Luttgens
Paul B. Andersen
The temporal components of the intervals between the event pairs
start - turnaround and turnaround - rejoin are clearly frame
dependent.
But why do you say that this is in contradiction with the POR?
That the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames
does not imply that frame dependent entities does not exist.
Is the fact that the velocity of an object is frame dependent
in contradiction with the POR?
> We will see hereafter that the contradiction is entirely due to
> the fact that SR considers only relative motion, hence ignores the
> physical consequences of a change of reference frame.
>
> LET ANALYSIS
>
> "If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
> excellent candidate."
> (Eric Prebys, Physics Department, Princeton University)
>
> Using LET without the ROS (relativity of simultaneity) to analyse
> the Twin paradox,
Is plain nonsense.
LET is defined by the Lorentz transform.
Relativity of simultaneity follows from the LT.
Paul
Trevor Morris
> Trevor Morris <tre...@teddington90.screaming.net> wrote:
> : Joe Fischer wrote:
> :> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...]
> :> : PS:
> :> : Well, at least I'm able to explain and logically defend my position...
> :>
> :> JF: In your dreams. Do you still maintain that
> :> an invisible undetectable medium can carry electric
> :> and magnetic forces,
> :
> : excuse me for butting in here, but this remark of yours made me
> : curious. Can you tell us about any observable property of these
> : fields that is not consistent with the existence of such a medium?
> : Clue: what property of space is necessary and sufficient to give a
> : physical explanation of the Lorentz Transformations and to extend the
> : Principle of Relativity to include (at least) electromagnetic
> : phenomena?
> :[snip]
> : So you disagree with Einstein, too?
> : Trevor Morris
>
> For anyone interested, volume 2 of the Princeton Press
> comlete papers has the writings of Albert Einstein for the
> years 1900-1909, I have the Anna Beck English translation,
> but if you read German, I think there are more footnotes, etc.
>
> I consider many of these papers to contain information
> that when all assembled, totally destroys any idea of an ether
> or medium being the carrier of the electric and magnetic
> character of light.
>
> It seems like Planck provided the ideas for Einstein
> to use in calculating the energy transfers needed to cause
> light quanta to generate electrons in a material, and the
> amount of light energy an applied voltage will produce.
> This line of thought begins in the 1905 paper on
> the production and transformation of light, and scientists
> of the time could not possibly have argued for an ether
> as the carrier of light in view of these writings.
>
This calls for a very brief, off-topic digression. What the quantum
hypothesis replaces is the idea that electrons bound within atoms can
change their energies continuously (rather than in jumps of fixed
size). Free electrons (in a vacuum) can have any energy, and
partially free electrons in conducting materials can have energies
ranging continuously within well defined bands, with "forbidden" gaps
between them. In the quantum theory, energy can be emitted or
absorbed by atoms only in fixed amounts called "quanta".
The energy so emitted propagates through space carried by an
electromagnetic wave, with no particle-like properties whatsoever.
The only particle-like properties of "quanta" are that for a given
atomic energy change they are fixed in size (initially, at least) and
can be counted, and that these packets of energy are emitted or
absorbed in events localised (usually) at a single atom or molecule.
E-m radiation in transit behaves in every possible way like a wave in
a medium: velocity independent of source, refraction, diffraction etc.
Quantum theory is no barrier at all to modelling light propagation in
that way. What it does introduce is the idea of "wave-particle
duality" for both matter and radiation. We just put up with that
conundrum until something better arrives, but one of the conventions
is that "light travelling" = waves (acting entirely as if in a medium,
but with this aspect often strenuously denied) and "light interacting"
= particles. Not very satisfactory, is it, folks? Still, back to
relativity.
> The 1907 paper on a review of relativity with
> conclusions continues the wiping away of any thought
> of a light medium, but it is all too involved for me
> to try to present in notes or quotes.
> If anyone is still so deluded to think that
> all scientists are wrong in accepting relativity and
> discarding the ether as the carrier of light, maybe
> somebody more capable could respond to specific points,
> there is a lot of math involved.
>
If it is a delusion, you will find when you get up to about 1920 in
your discovery of the progression of Einstein's thinking that he
shared in it, by then he said: "space without ether is unthinkable"
(the crank's favourite quote, no doubt - see the whole lecture by
Einstein in "Sidelights on Relativity", English translation by Jeffery
& Perrett, pub. Methuen, London, 1922).
> Part of it involves the amount of energy that
> could result from all possibly frequencies being
> present, and if I understand it correctly, a medium
> would allow the energy to go to infinity.
> It is the fact that light is it's own medium,
I thought you ridiculed the idea that the CMBR is a medium. You can
not have it both ways. Either light is its own medium (which is
indeed a ridiculous statement), or it travels like waves in a medium.
> with the energy transported quanta by quanta, that
> avoids such problems.
>
[...]
> And there are so many arguments supporting
> the quanta theory and destroying the medium theory,
> it is obvious that the LET could not survive.
>
Quantum theory is perfectly compatible with a "medium" model.
> I think it is unfortunate that nearly 100 years
> later, people are reverting back to the simplistic
> approach of a medium as the carrier of light, ignoring
> the quantum approach.
If you prefer a particle approach, you are ignoring all the evidence
that the velocity of the supposed particles is independent of that of
their source. Particles are shot from a source with the velocity of
the source added: no other possibility exists. Quantum theory does
not suggest that at all. On the contrary, the development of the
quantum approach has from time to time entailed theories and models
consistent with the existence of a substratum or fine structure of
space which acts as a unique medium for light propagation and a source
for particle creation. (e.g. see Dirac P A M, Nature Vol. 168, p907-7
and Vol. 169 p146-7, 1951. Also Sciama D, New Scientist, 2 Feb. 1978,
p298-300 "The ether transmogrified"). String Theory is going the same
way.
There is no conflict whatsoever between quantum theory and the
existence of such a "medium". The "medium" idea, far from being
refuted by it, actually arises quite naturally in quantum theory, as
it does in GR (as Einstein had realised by 1920). What the hell is
all the fuss and hysteria about, in the far more limited context of
SR?
[...]
Trevor Morris
Trevor Morris
> Trevor Morris <tre...@teddington90.screaming.net> wrote:
>
> > The CMBR rest frame appears to be expanding. This does not
> > affect its uniqueness or its local inertial status.
>
> As usual in general relativity, this depends on what you mean by
> ``local.'' For example, in the absence of any forces, two objects
> that are initially each at rest with respect to the CMBR will start
> to move away from each other.
No, if we are being picky, in the expanding Universe model the two
objects are always moving away from each other while they occupy fixed
positions in an expanding space. There is no "initially at rest" or
"starting to move" apart at any time after the Big Bang. However, on
anything less than galactic scales, this is not a practical problem,
and "local" in that sense is not a serious restriction.
> The frame is still ``locally inertial''
> in the GR sense that this motion can be made arbitrarily small by
> starting in a small enough region and looking at a small enough
> time.
So we agree on that.
> But it's certainly not ``inertial'' in the SR or Galilean sense.
>
But then, nothing is, in those senses, other than as an abstract
idealisation.
> (Of course, even this is true only if you're in deep space, far away
> from any gravitating masses. A locally inertial frame near the
> surface of the Earth is a freely falling frame, and that certainly
> is not moving at a constant velocity relative to the CMBR frame.)
>
> Steve Carlip
So what is your point? Such an accelerating frame is not moving with
a constant velocity relative to an idealised, abstract SR inertial
frame, either. My quoted statement at the top is correct.
Trevor Morris
Trevor Morris
> Trevor Morris wrote:
> > You have decided you do not need a unique frame of reference for light
> > propagation, but that does not preclude the existence of such a frame,
> > nor its identification with the obvious candidate.
>
> No. As I have said rather often around here (but in different ways).
> But it is impossible to establish its existence _experimentally_.
>
>
> > As to viable
> > theories, the sole property needed for the unique frame of reference
> > in an "ether" theory delivering Special Relativity is that it sets an
> > upper limit for all propagation of matter and radiation in vacuo,
> > namely the speed of light.
>
> Not true. In order to remain consistent with the MMX and its many
> successors, a viable ether theory must predict that the round-trip
> speed of light in _ANY_ inertial frame will be measured to be
> isotropically c.
That is precisely the result delivered by the sole property I stated
above, so my statement is true.
> This then brings one to the equivalence class of
> theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Your "sole
> property" is insufficient to establish this necessry criterion, but it
> is obeyed by every theory of that class..
What else is required?
>
> As I said before, there remains the unlikely possibility that in
> the future someone will construct a viable ether theory which
> "lives in the error bars" of these experiments, but does not
> belong to that equivalence class.
>
Why on Earth would anybody want to do that when the existing theory
based on a single frame of reference predicts experimental outcomes as
precisely as SR, without needing any extra room in "error bars".
>
> > No such basic
> > feature of an "ether" theory has been refuted by any experiment, to my
> > knowledge. If you know of such an experiment, please enlighten us.
>
> No refutation has ever been made of ANY member of the class of ether
> theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, within their
> domain of applicability. This of course applies to SR as well.
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Well, that is something we can agree on. In addition, I propose that
it is obvious that the domain of applicability of such ether theories
is automatically extended to whatever phenomena cannot exceed the
speed of light in vacuo. (If a faster than light phenomenon capable
of transmitting matter, energy or information is ever found, both the
ether theory I put forward and SR are dead.)
Trevor Morris
and...@attglobal.net
Your infantile ravings don't prove anything.
What Tom Roberts is saying is supported by experiment.
What you're saying has been falsified by experiment.
John Anderson
Tom Roberts
> I don't believe in time being a reality like you give it.
> It's a clock's motion and nothing more.
> You are fooled by a simple mechanical device,
> into believing it's counting something other
> than it's own internal motions.
Where did I ever say anything like that? I said that in modern physics
we use the word "time" to denote what it is that clocks measure. And I
specifically said that nobody has ever succeeded in discussing "time"
independent of clocks. Sure, a clock is indeed counting its own internal
motions. And a large part of physics, especially relativity physics, is
relating how the measurements of different clocks' "own internal
motions" relate to each other.
Apparently you cannot read what I wrote, or you would have realized that
I was essentially in agreement with what you imply here.
> [... infantile ravings deleted]
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Joe Fischer
: If you prefer a particle approach, you are ignoring all the evidence
: that the velocity of the supposed particles is independent of that of
: their source.
Not me, all of the scientific community, but they
are not not ignoring anything.
: Particles are shot from a source with the velocity of
: the source added: no other possibility exists.
I am glad you provided one of your misconceptions,
while this is true of bullets, it does not apply to photons,
even if it is not known how it works.
The c +/- v is a common argument by the kooks,
so check the textbooks for the facts.
: Quantum theory does
: not suggest that at all. On the contrary, the development of the
: quantum approach has from time to time entailed theories and models
: consistent with the existence of a substratum or fine structure of
: space which acts as a unique medium for light propagation and a source
: for particle creation. (e.g. see Dirac P A M, Nature Vol. 168, p907-7
: and Vol. 169 p146-7, 1951. Also Sciama D, New Scientist, 2 Feb. 1978,
: p298-300 "The ether transmogrified"). String Theory is going the same
: way.
:
: There is no conflict whatsoever between quantum theory and the
: existence of such a "medium". The "medium" idea, far from being
: refuted by it, actually arises quite naturally in quantum theory, as
: it does in GR (as Einstein had realised by 1920). What the hell is
: all the fuss and hysteria about, in the far more limited context of
: SR?
The "fuss" is about a few dozen idiots claiming
they know more than Einstein or the scientific world
about SR being correct, which seems to be something
that you are doing with "there is no other possibility".
Don't bother giving me references, I have all
the books, purchased by me to try to find clues about
the nature of gravity.
The relativists here (not me) would not object to
a discussion of Special Relativity, it is the flat out
statements by "know-it-alls" that SR is incorrect that
is causing a disruption of rational discussion of the
ongoing status of relativity and the experiments being
done.
Joe Fischer
--
3
MLuttgens
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote :
>Date : Wed, 05 Sep 2001
>
You are making progress. The problem is that SR has no physical
explanation for the time differences observed between the two
frames, whereas with LET, the explanation is straightforward: the
use of the Earth frame implies an Earth at "absolute" rest, whereas
that of the outbound frame implies that the Earth moves at V = .99 c
wrt the CMBR. The main difference is that a change of frame is
a mere change of perspective for SR, Iow it is physically neutral. LET
shows that this is not the case.
>Is the fact that the velocity of an object is frame dependent
>in contradiction with the POR?
According to Tim Shuba, Terence will not agree about the one-way
times calculated with the outbound frame. Indeed, he wrote:
"This turnaround event takes place at approximately one year (as
measured in the outbound frame). At that event, Stella's
clock reads 1 year and Terence's clock as measured *from the
outbound frame* has ticked off only 1/7 or ~.142 year.
It does correspond to Terence's proper time, from when his clock
reads zero until his clock reads .142 year. Let's say that Terence
fires a flare at that time on his clock. That flare event is
simultaneous with Stella's turnaround event *in the outbound frame*.
Of course Terence, using clocks synchronized in his frame, does not
agree, because he reckons correctly *in his frame* that Stella has
only made it 1/49 of the way to the turnaround when he lights the
flare."
I think he gave that interpretation in order to "save" the POR.
>
>
>> We will see hereafter that the contradiction is entirely due to
>> the fact that SR considers only relative motion, hence ignores the
>> physical consequences of a change of reference frame.
>>
>> LET ANALYSIS
>>
>> "If you're looking for an "absolute rest frame", that's an
>> excellent candidate."
>> (Eric Prebys, Physics Department, Princeton University)
>>
>> Using LET without the ROS (relativity of simultaneity) to analyse
>> the Twin paradox,
>
>Is plain nonsense.
>LET is defined by the Lorentz transform.
>Relativity of simultaneity follows from the LT.
Sure, but it doesn't apply in the case of the Twin paradox, because
there is no physical mean to measure the displacement of position
of the Earth wrt the CMBR. If the ROS did apply, as you are claiming,
my LET analysis, which don't use it, would not have obtained the same
numerical results as SR.
>
>Paul
Marcel Luttgens
Spaceman
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3B96F3...@attglobal.net...
> Your infantile ravings don't prove anything.
My ravings are not infantile or in lack of any proof.
You are the infant replying to my proof.
You are crying because I am correct.
and your time travel machines will never work.
for time does not exist.
> What Tom Roberts is saying is supported by experiment.
No,
Tom is not reading what I'm stating and pulling the ignorance factor
out from his trick physics bag.
> What you're saying has been falsified by experiment.
Bullshit,
You are a lier!
What I state is proved by all clocks.
Time does not exist.
only a clocks motuion being counted does
as time.
the time itself is not a reality.
and
you are a fool for giving it such.
Spaceman
"Tom Roberts" <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3B96E099...@avenew.com...
> Where did I ever say anything like that? I said that in modern physics
> we use the word "time" to denote what it is that clocks measure. And I
> specifically said that nobody has ever succeeded in discussing "time"
> independent of clocks. Sure, a clock is indeed counting its own internal
> motions. And a large part of physics, especially relativity physics, is
> relating how the measurements of different clocks' "own internal
> motions" relate to each other.
You keep stating we measure time itself with clocks
and stating that is physics..
it isn't real physics... (SciFi physics is more like it)
for the time of one clock has nothing to do with the time on another
clock or it's frame of reference.
and...
WE DON"T measure time itself.!
and all we measure is clocks counting of motions.
in thier own frame of reference.
> Apparently you cannot read what I wrote, or you would have realized that
> I was essentially in agreement with what you imply here.
>
>
> > [... infantile ravings deleted]
No you sad sack of crap.
You are not agreeing or you would not add the infantile rantings deleted
crap
above
You are not reading at all, and are trolling my posts without facts and
merely only you saying I'm wrong with no proof whatsoever,
and yet also agreeing slightly.
only a clocks motions have been measured,
nothing besides the clock has been measured.
Tom Roberts
> You keep stating we measure time itself with clocks
> and stating that is physics..
Yes. Consider it a definition of the word "time". That's the usual
definition of that word in modern physics.
> WE DON"T measure time itself.!
> and all we measure is clocks counting of motions.
Yes. AS I SAID. I don't even know what is "time itself", all I know of
is measurements of clocks, and certain psychological aspects of memory
which are obviously flawed as clocks, but which give an internal mental
direction of experience -- that is _memory_, not "time".
> [more infantile ravings deleted]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
> Trevor Morris <tre...@teddington90.screaming.net> wrote:
> : If you prefer a particle approach, you are ignoring all the evidence
> : that the velocity of the supposed particles is independent of that of
> : their source.
>
> Not me, all of the scientific community, but they
> are not not ignoring anything.
a hoot, chemists couldn't careless, mathematicians live in their own world,
biologists don't understand it or want to, geologists want nothing to do
with it.
For the most part, the scientific community IS ignoring it.
Relativists are fools with over-inflated egos that think they are the
embodiment of
the scientific community.
It is very much YOU, not all of the scientific community, and your argument
seems to be "I'll go along with the majority", which is a pretty poor excuse
for being a sheep.
> : Particles are shot from a source with the velocity of
> : the source added: no other possibility exists.
>
> I am glad you provided one of your misconceptions,
> while this is true of bullets, it does not apply to photons,
Assertion carries no weight, prove it!
The vector addiction of velocities is included in Einstein's first
postulate, and he uses it in (w+v)/(1+wv/c^2), even if he does
get his math wrong. It isn't a misconception of anyones but yours.
> even if it is not known how it works.
> The c +/- v is a common argument by the kooks,
> so check the textbooks for the facts.
On the contrary, just two years ago very few of us Newtonian kooks
were around, and the challenge to the relativity kooks was from the
aetherialist kooks. Now more and more thinking people are giving it
consideration, and some relativists are falling off. There's alway a few
diehards. Textbooks do not contain facts, they contain theories.
Anyone can write a book, and most textbook writers are just like
you, parrots. You think is something is written in a book, it is fact.
Go read "And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years:
and he died". Some people will believe anything if they see it in a book.
>
> : Quantum theory does
> : not suggest that at all. On the contrary, the development of the
> : quantum approach has from time to time entailed theories and models
> : consistent with the existence of a substratum or fine structure of
> : space which acts as a unique medium for light propagation and a source
> : for particle creation. (e.g. see Dirac P A M, Nature Vol. 168, p907-7
> : and Vol. 169 p146-7, 1951. Also Sciama D, New Scientist, 2 Feb. 1978,
> : p298-300 "The ether transmogrified"). String Theory is going the same
> : way.
> :
> : There is no conflict whatsoever between quantum theory and the
> : existence of such a "medium". The "medium" idea, far from being
> : refuted by it, actually arises quite naturally in quantum theory, as
> : it does in GR (as Einstein had realised by 1920). What the hell is
> : all the fuss and hysteria about, in the far more limited context of
> : SR?
>
> The "fuss" is about a few dozen idiots claiming
> they know more than Einstein or the scientific world
> about SR being correct, which seems to be something
> that you are doing with "there is no other possibility".
The idiots you refer to are people that can think, whereas
idiots like you can only parrot what you've read.
You dumbclucks are incapable of thinking for yourselves,
you want it spoon-fed to you.
Don't bother giving me references, I have all
> the books, purchased by me to try to find clues about
> the nature of gravity.
>
> The relativists here (not me) would not object to
> a discussion of Special Relativity, it is the flat out
> statements by "know-it-alls" that SR is incorrect that
> is causing a disruption of rational discussion of the
> ongoing status of relativity and the experiments being
> done.
SR is incorrect because....oh... you are to stupid to listen.
Well, here is is anyway.
http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble2
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Trevor Morris wrote:
> > > the sole property needed for the unique frame of reference
> > > in an "ether" theory delivering Special Relativity is that it sets an
> > > upper limit for all propagation of matter and radiation in vacuo,
> > > namely the speed of light.
In addition to your "sole property", you also need one of the following:
a) the PoR (which kills any ether theory and yields SR).
b) the ONE-WAY speed of light is isotropically c in one frame (aka the
ether frame).
You also need Einsteins "hidden" assumptions:
3) space is isotropic and homogeneous (in the ether frame if (b) is used,
in all inertial frames if (a) is used).
4) time is homogeneous
5) clocks and rulers have no memory
> > As I said before, there remains the unlikely possibility that in
> > the future someone will construct a viable ether theory which
> > "lives in the error bars" of these experiments, but does not
> > belong to that equivalence class.
> Why on Earth would anybody want to do that when the existing theory
> based on a single frame of reference predicts experimental outcomes as
> precisely as SR, without needing any extra room in "error bars".
People who don't understand SR and who are emotionally attached to the
ether concept _desperately_ want to do that. <shrug>
BTW there is no single "existing theory" as you say, there is an
infinite class of them.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Spaceman
>(trolling snipped)
>
> > [more infantile ravings deleted]
Do you ever post without a putdown
or are you always a piece of shit smelling up the group with
non needed insults.
you are the friggen infantile.
Grow Up Thomas.
first step is to learn to communicate without calling someone
infantile.
and
BTW:
If you were not so busy insulting my thoughts and posts.
you may have actuallly read and learned why time dilations don't occur in
time itself
and won't change anything about age such as the silly twin paradox.
I'm saddened by your ignorance and arrogance and insultations
and all you have shown me is physics people are stupid and refuse to learn
and instead love to belittle others instead oif actually reading or
listening.
Fuch Off Tom!
PLONK!
Joe Fischer
So, are those with empty space between their ears
browbeating you into their line of thinking?
Clocks are made with very much effort expended to
make them reflect the proper time flow that exists in nature.
Atomic clocks do that quite well.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Tom Roberts
> [to me]
> So, are those with empty space between their ears
> browbeating you into their line of thinking?
Certainly not!
> Clocks are made with very much effort expended to
> make them reflect the proper time flow that exists in nature.
> Atomic clocks do that quite well.
Hmmm. What does "proper time flow" mean? AFAIK it means "as measured
by the clock", so your statement is inherently circular.
In actuality, clocks are carefully crafted so that multiple clocks
which are collocated and comoving keep accurately in synch with each
other. That is _ALL_ that we know how to do to make the best clocks
possible....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dwhig265
>Dwhig265 wrote:
>> the cmbr [...] in fact is the long sought "aether"
>
>It cannot be: inside a shielded enclosure there is no CMBR, but light
>propagates just fine.
>>Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Sir,
You are quite right. The cmbr is merely the outward manifestation of the
aether which is itself a property of the quantum aspect. I have clarified this
and I thank you for pointing it out. Regards, Dwain Higginbotham
http://members.aol.com/dwhig265/index.htm
Trevor Morris
> Trevor Morris <tre...@teddington90.screaming.net> wrote:
> : If you prefer a particle approach, you are ignoring all the evidence
> : that the velocity of the supposed particles is independent of that of
> : their source.
>
> Not me, all of the scientific community, but they
> are not not ignoring anything.
>
> : Particles are shot from a source with the velocity of
> : the source added: no other possibility exists.
>
> I am glad you provided one of your misconceptions,
> while this is true of bullets, it does not apply to photons,
> even if it is not known how it works.
So you prefer some mysterious, unknown phenomenon to the only two
possibilities known to science for light propagation: waves or bullets
-(otherwise known as wave-particle duality)? Of these two
possibilities, only the wave model fits what light does in transit.
That is not a misconception.
> The c +/- v is a common argument by the kooks,
> so check the textbooks for the facts.
Any textbook will tell you that the initial velocity of particles
includes that of their source. Any textbook will also tell you that
within a single inertial frame of reference, simple vector addition
applies for velocities, including that of light.
>
> : Quantum theory does
> : not suggest that at all. On the contrary, the development of the
> : quantum approach has from time to time entailed theories and models
> : consistent with the existence of a substratum or fine structure of
> : space which acts as a unique medium for light propagation and a source
> : for particle creation. (e.g. see Dirac P A M, Nature Vol. 168, p907-7
> : and Vol. 169 p146-7, 1951. Also Sciama D, New Scientist, 2 Feb. 1978,
> : p298-300 "The ether transmogrified"). String Theory is going the same
> : way.
> :
> : There is no conflict whatsoever between quantum theory and the
> : existence of such a "medium". The "medium" idea, far from being
> : refuted by it, actually arises quite naturally in quantum theory, as
> : it does in GR (as Einstein had realised by 1920). What the hell is
> : all the fuss and hysteria about, in the far more limited context of
> : SR?
>
> The "fuss" is about a few dozen idiots claiming
> they know more than Einstein or the scientific world
> about SR being correct, which seems to be something
> that you are doing with "there is no other possibility".
>
I was referring to the fuss created by the somewhat irrational
defences of the conventional presentation of SR: the kind often
provoked by the idea that an obvious generalisation of the Lorentz
ether model actually delivers SR and all its consequences.
> Don't bother giving me references, I have all
> the books, purchased by me to try to find clues about
> the nature of gravity.
>
OK, you know it all, so I won't. But others might be interested, so
maybe I will.
> The relativists here (not me) would not object to
> a discussion of Special Relativity, it is the flat out
> statements by "know-it-alls" that SR is incorrect that
> is causing a disruption of rational discussion of the
> ongoing status of relativity and the experiments being
> done.
>
> Joe Fischer
My discussion is about the necessary and sufficient physical basis for
SR which is provided by the model of a single, universal reference
frame for all energy transfer. I note you are not still pushing the
line in your previous post that quantum theory precludes such a model.
Trevor Morris
and...@attglobal.net
How do you carefully construct a clock to measure proper time?
Proper time along its own world line is what a clock measures
provided any accelerations of the clock don't significantly
affect the physics that it uses to keep time.
That's a definition.
John Anderson
Joe Fischer
:"Joe Fischer" wrote:
:> Trevor Morris <tre...@teddington90.screaming.net> wrote:
:> : If you prefer a particle approach, you are ignoring all the evidence
:> : that the velocity of the supposed particles is independent of that of
:> : their source.
:>
:> Not me, all of the scientific community, but they
:> are not not ignoring anything.
:
: As to *all* of the scientific community, most medical practioners don't give
: a hoot, chemists couldn't careless, mathematicians live in their own world,
: biologists don't understand it or want to, geologists want nothing to do
: with it.
You are hopelessly doomed to your soapbox
by an apparent bitterness.
Are you suffering from the "why didn't they
teach me that in the first place" syndrome?
: For the most part, the scientific community IS ignoring it.
: Relativists are fools with over-inflated egos that think they are the
: embodiment of the scientific community.
Look who's talking. I don't see any arguments
in the literature, just experiments and conclusions.
: It is very much YOU, not all of the scientific community, and your argument
: seems to be "I'll go along with the majority", which is a pretty poor excuse
: for being a sheep.
That's funny, because I am not even a relativist,
I believe in a theory too absurd to talk about. :-)
:> : Particles are shot from a source with the velocity of
:> : the source added: no other possibility exists.
:>
:> I am glad you provided one of your misconceptions,
:> while this is true of bullets, it does not apply to photons,
:
: Assertion carries no weight, prove it!
It should be easy to prove. First assert a postulate;
Photons are like spherical bubbles, and these bubbles
break when they strike something.
So now we have something to try to disprove
by doing experiments.
The two slit experiment has been done, so
maybe a three slit or a four slit experiment will
show something.
Maybe multiple slits at slightly different
distances.
This is the way science was being done at
the turn of the century when Einstein showed that
the ether isn't needed, and it wouldn't work.
The CMBR was postulated before it was
found, but by different people than the ones who
found it accidentally.
: The vector addiction of velocities is included in Einstein's first
: postulate, and he uses it in (w+v)/(1+wv/c^2), even if he does
: get his math wrong. It isn't a misconception of anyones but yours.
The first postulate was a beginning, the etherists
and the Newtonians had things so confused they had to be
changed little by little.
:> even if it is not known how it works.
:
:> The c +/- v is a common argument by the kooks,
:> so check the textbooks for the facts.
:
: On the contrary, just two years ago very few of us Newtonian kooks
: were around,
Why would a Newtonian kook be posting for the
CMBR being a medium?
: and the challenge to the relativity kooks was from the
: aetherialist kooks.
Thanks, I like that better than etherists. :-)
: Now more and more thinking people are giving it
: consideration, and some relativists are falling off.
: There's alway a few diehards.
That is really funny, it reminds me of the
boxer laying on the floor asking "do you give up?". :-)
: Textbooks do not contain facts, they contain theories.
Hopefully they relate the experiments already done.
: Anyone can write a book, and most textbook writers are just like
: you, parrots.
Name a book that includes an in-depth discussion
of Divergent Matter being the mechanism of gravitation.
: You think is something is written in a book, it is fact.
: Go read "And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years:
: and he died". Some people will believe anything if they see it in a book.
Is this where your bitterness came from? I have
read many books and papers on the CMBR, and it is very
well studied, but it is nothing related to a medium.
:> : Quantum theory does
:> : not suggest that at all. On the contrary, the development of the
:> : quantum approach has from time to time entailed theories and models
:> : consistent with the existence of a substratum or fine structure of
:> : space which acts as a unique medium for light propagation and a source
:> : for particle creation. (e.g. see Dirac P A M, Nature Vol. 168, p907-7
:> : and Vol. 169 p146-7, 1951. Also Sciama D, New Scientist, 2 Feb. 1978,
:> : p298-300 "The ether transmogrified"). String Theory is going the same
:> : way.
:> :
:> : There is no conflict whatsoever between quantum theory and the
:> : existence of such a "medium". The "medium" idea, far from being
:> : refuted by it, actually arises quite naturally in quantum theory, as
:> : it does in GR (as Einstein had realised by 1920). What the hell is
:> : all the fuss and hysteria about, in the far more limited context of
:> : SR?
:>
:> The "fuss" is about a few dozen idiots claiming
:> they know more than Einstein or the scientific world
:> about SR being correct, which seems to be something
:> that you are doing with "there is no other possibility".
:
: The idiots you refer to are people that can think, whereas
: idiots like you can only parrot what you've read.
: You dumbclucks are incapable of thinking for yourselves,
: you want it spoon-fed to you.
Are you also posting with the user ID "Spaceman"?
:> Don't bother giving me references, I have all
:> the books, purchased by me to try to find clues about
:> the nature of gravity.
:>
:> The relativists here (not me) would not object to
:> a discussion of Special Relativity, it is the flat out
:> statements by "know-it-alls" that SR is incorrect that
:> is causing a disruption of rational discussion of the
:> ongoing status of relativity and the experiments being
:> done.
:
: SR is incorrect because....oh... you are to stupid to listen.
: Well, here is is anyway.
: http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble2
Why would I want to read about fumble2?
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: My discussion is about the necessary and sufficient physical basis for
: SR which is provided by the model of a single, universal reference
: frame for all energy transfer. I note you are not still pushing the
: line in your previous post that quantum theory precludes such a model.
I have news for you, SR has been superceded by
General Relativity, and you are not even up to freshman
physics with a single reference frame for energy transfers,
each dominating mass becomes the preferred frame because
kinetic energy is a calculation of a relative measurement.
I suggest you pay attention to Jim Carr, maybe
even lurk in sci.physics, and learn about frame dependent
measurements.
The papers by Einstein gave the argument and
math reasons why low energy quanta doesn't work with
ether.
My view is that ether theory is an old idea,
and that today it is such a stupid idea, it is not
worth thinking about.
If you are interested in why Einstein wrote
that ether theory doesn't fit, read the papers and
do the math.
If you want to know why a single reference
frame is an impossibility, I can tell you.
I had formed ideas about gravity before
1950, but really began library research in 1963,
Pasadena had a decent library, and I was able
to make some progress.
I did a lot of silly things there, trying
to get propulsion from radiation pressure, but
also writing and trying to publicize my ideas
on gravity.
If you will try to calculate the kinetic
energy of 100 spaceships all approaching each
other at different speeds and from different
directions, it will become apparent that only
the relative motions of the ships matter.
But Einstein had to go through all this
too, and finally learning that kinetic energy
and gravitational potential energy are relative
concepts dependent on the planet involved, and
not a single frame, universal or absolute
concept.
The gravitation part (part 5) of the 1907 paper
contains a lot of talk about energy and how it is
affected by an accelerated system.
He also talks about space and time, but
in 1909 Minkowski change a lot of that.
Einstein was learning too, and writing
to share as he learned, writing with excitement
at having learned each thing.
I become very discouraged to see somebody
write nonsense as the spaceman does, and with the
arrogance that always reveals incorrectness.
Jim Carr knows SR as well as anybody, and
Tom Roberts knows GR quite well.
Much can be learned from them, if they
only don't get discouraged by the idiots mouthing
off.
It shouldn't take a genius to figure out
the age old ether concept is finished, and nothing
is going to revive it.
When Lorentz wrote the theory (1895) there
were no electromagnetic solenoids on use, there
was no radio, radium was handled by hand, it was
not known the dangers of x-rays and radiation,
doctors had x-ray machines on their desk, and
held the patients arm or leg that was being x-rayed.
The result was severe radiation damage,
but they didn't find out until the damage was done.
There isn't any ether, the CMBR is just
random photons at high frequency, probably redshifted
visible light.
And all the grasping for straws to explain
phenomena like gravity by a medium or particle stream
exerting forces on objects only shows the lack of
study of the physics involved, which is associated
with relativity, or relativity is a result of it.
There isn't any ether, and Newtonian gravitation
is just a second rate approximation model.
General Relativity doesn't provide the cause
or mechanism everybody wants, but it is a step in
the right direction, the radio signals returned from
transponders we placed on Mars and Venus have proved
General Relativity a thousand times.
This says nothing for or against SR, which
is a special area of relativity, not used by everone.
Joe Fischer
--
3