Re: Relativistic CMB

From: Rob Dekker (rob_at_verific.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:30:53 GMT

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1107137701.918914.103550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.astro whopkins@csd.uwm.edu wrote:
> > > Rob Dekker wrote:
> > >> Lets try to measure the Cosmic Microwave Background.
> > >> What do we see ?
> >
> > > Let me make your question simpler: what you're asking is whether
> the
> > > CMB selects out a particular frame of reference. It does. The
> motion
> > > of the Earth is already known with respect to it (I think it's
> towards
> > > Saggitarius). Likewise, everything else will have a motion
> relative to
> > > it.
> >
> > It's worth pointing out, though, that this frame of reference has
> > some peculiar characteristics. In particular, most people who have
> > not thought about cosmology would say that if object A and object B
> > are both at rest in a particular frame of reference, then object A
> > must be at rest relative to object B. This is *not* true in the CMB
> > frame -- in general, two spatially separated objects both at rest in
> > that frame will be in motion relative to each other, in the sense
> > that the distance between them changes with time.
> > Steve Carlip
>
> I think Steve's suggestion violates energy conservation,
> no sufficiently large portion of the universe can
> increasing acquire the energy sufficient to vary the global
> average g_00 in that volume, to expand the spacetime volume.
>
> I look to the relation L = GE/c^4 (E=energy, L=length),
> from GR to show the huge amount of Energy that is required
> to enter said volume. A very imagininative divergence of
> energy into said volume would need to be postulated, and
> then another postulate would be required as to how said
> energy influx is not detected.

Hi Ken,
I don't really understand your deduction and conclusions,
but I think that Steve's suggestion MUST be correct :

Since Hubble, we know that the Universe is expanding.
Observers in the Galaxies that we see moving away from us at high speed
will observe the CMB pretty much the same way we see it :

They can determine that/if they are at 'rest' w.r.t. the CMB just as we can.
So apart from some minor local movement, they will likely
see the CMB as consistent omnidirectionally.

So they are in the same CMB frame of reference as we are,
but they are still moving away from us at high speed.

Steve, please correct me if I mis-interpreted your suggestion.

>
> Recall the entire Mass of the earth only changes Length
> by about, 4mm, and that's experimentally verified.
> (1.47 km in the case of the Sun).
>
> There is absolutely no way the Hubble Constant can be
> explained by "expanding spacetime" using GR, that's
> junky, as I've proved.

Sorry. I'm pretty new here. Where is that proof ?

> Oh, the inventions of unobtaniums
> like dark energy/matter, and other ghosts notwithstanding.
> Those who indulge in comic book physics may believe as
> they please, I won't bother arguing.
>
> On the basis of observation the universe is consistent
> with a infinite extent in space and time but, with a
> finite density, it works in theory too.
>
> Humans, are by nature mortal and tend to create the
> universe in their own image, including the premordial
> orgasm, that sub-conciously arrests objective theoretical
> consideration of the true nature of the universe, to
> the deteriment of progress, on religious "center of the
> universe" grounds.
>
> I doubt, given the fanaticism evident today, there
> will be any concensus of progress, particularily as
> current professional physcists are paid more based on
> sensationalism pandering to that urge by the public,
> than for objectivity.
>
> For those reason's I find serious researchers tend
> to shun publicity, and in themselves form a progressive
> group, un-perturbed by the demands of the un-washed
> religious rabble, Black Holes and Big Bangs pander too.
>
> Where theoretics is concerned this is a dark age,
> too much media feed-back screws pure thinking.
>
> Don't even read you own headlines.
> Ken S. Tucker
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
    ... producing an electric field. ... But the loss of energy by light is ... Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
    ... producing an electric field. ... energy loss, I presume). ... Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... specific frame of reference. ... >> No. Einstein took the classical Conservation of Energy is both frames. ... >> had already calculated how the energy of radiation transforms between ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... specific frame of reference. ... >> No. Einstein took the classical Conservation of Energy is both frames. ... >> had already calculated how the energy of radiation transforms between ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic CMB
    ... >> It's worth pointing out, though, that this frame of reference has ... > increasing acquire the energy sufficient to vary the global ... we know that the Universe is expanding. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading