Re: Beam me up - trying to get a basic understanding of GR


"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d5fprl$s96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:d5b1tv$4dt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Nobody expects SR to be valid globally. That's a major reason why
>>>Einstein searched for GR.
>>
>> Maybe the Lorentz Transform is not complete.
>
> Within its domain of validity it is provably "complete". But that domain
> is inertial frames in flat spacetime, which observably does not correspond
> to the world we inhabit. SR is only approximately valid in small regions
> of spacetime.

You always run back to GR whenever confronted with this issue as if a little
kid runs to hide under his mother's skirt. Without GR, you have no
argument.

>> How about the good old CMB?
>> Please explain this to me why such a coordinate in which CMB looks very
>> symmetrical is not the absolute frame of reference.
>
> Because the frame in which the CMBR dipole is zero does not have the
> properties of "absolute frame of reference". For instance, the CMBR is
> observably different for distant objects (astronomers have observed the
> interaction between the CMBR and distant objects).
>
> The phrase "absolute frame of reference" implies some special significance
> in the laws of physics. The CMBR dipole=0 frame has no such specialness,
> except for observations of the CMBR itself -- in this it is no more
> "special" than the earth or my little finger.

No, only to crackpots, the absolute frame of refernece represents something
borderlining magic realm. There is no justification to find leprachaun or
unicorns in that frame of reference. It is because of this fear that you
reject the existence of the absolute frame of reference

>> I saw the way you "debunked" Cahill by attacking his experimental
>> interpretation.
>
> Yes. Because that is his primary flaw. In fact, I now know that most if
> not every one of the experiments he claims "support his theory" (Miller,
> Michelson and Morley, Illingworth, DeWitte) have fatal flaws in that
> support -- _NONE_ of those have any SIGNIFICANT "signal". Basically
> neither Cahill nor any of those experimenters examined their errorbars,
> and the "signals" that Cahill claims they have are all very much smaller
> than the errorbars. In particular, Miller analyzed a "signal" that was
> 100% noise; he proclaimed he "determined the absolute motion of the earth"
> because of his lack of errorbars (to be fair, errorbars were not used very
> often back then, and the DSP techniques I use to show his "signal" is 100%
> noise were unknown in Miller's day -- Miller made no mistakes, and yet got
> a completely bogus result). I'm writing a paper on this....

I think you will have a much stronger argument if you debunk his
mathematical re-interpretation of Loretz Transform just lile what you have
claimed you have done against cranks. Doing so is not that difficult and
certainly should take much less time than what you have done by attacking
his experimental interpretations.


.

Relevant Pages