Re: The CMBR falsifies SR


Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1154788038.780141.259290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The CMBR falsifies SR

SRists forget that since Einstein, the CMBR has been discovered.
To day, the spaceship observer, as well as the Earth observer, can
determine their velocity wrt the CMBR. Those velocities can be called
"absolute", hence the relative velocity between the Earth and the
spaceship are also "absolute". Iow, thanks to the CMBR, one knows which
one is "really" moving fast, and which one is not.
If SRists recognize this, they should realize that the theoretical
foundation of SR is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

A short explanation for beginners, with a short answer:
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

PD

Thank you, Paul, for your reference

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

"How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?
Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?
The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that
there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole
of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works
the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the
fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion
through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!"
However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that
there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames
where the laws of physics are different."

SR is wrong, see below.

"There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in
some sense, the rest frame of the Universe."

In *every* sense!

"But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good
as this one."

According to Einstein.

"So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure
no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply
any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."

I like the qualifier *only*.

The fact is that the velocity of any object can theoretically be
determined wrt that of "a frame where the CMB is at rest".

For instance, if an object A has a velocity vA wrt an object C at rest
in the CMBR frame, to a time interval t measured in C corresponds
a time interval tA = t * sqrt(1-(vA/c)^2) in the A frame.

No - be precise and try to understand the meanings of the
variables. Otherwise you make errors.
To a time interval t measured between two *colocal*
events in A, corresponds a time interval
tA = t * sqrt(1-(vA/c)^2)
in the A frame.

Similarly, if an object B has a velocity vB wrt C, to the same time
interval t measured in the C corresponds a time interval
tB = t * sqrt(1-(vB/c)^2) in the B frame.

Be precise again.
To a time interval t measured between two *colocal*
events in B, corresponds a time interval
tB = t * sqrt(1-(vB/c)^2)
in the B frame.


Hence, tA/tB = sqrt(1-(vA/c)^2) / sqrt(1-(vB/c)^2).

Hence?
You divide two equations that are valid for different pairs
of events. Your equations
tA = t * sqrt(1-(vA/c)^2)
tB = t * sqrt(1-(vB/c)^2)
can only be both valid for two events that are colocal in both
frames A and B, which is only possible in the trivial case
vA = vB
or if
t = tA = tB = 0
in which case you are not even allowed to write down the
ratio.

So indeed, your understanding of SR is quite wrong. No
question about that.

Dirk Vdm

As you are again trying (perhaps involuntarily, because you are
obviously SR brainwashed) to obscure the subject, I will use the
scenario
described by udegenb...@xxxxxxxxx in the thread "Is motion absolute?":

"If a spaceship is flying from the Earth at very high speed, then by
relativity theory time in the spaceship goes slower. But on the other
hand one can say that the spaceship stays still and the Earth is flying

in the opposite direction at the same speed. So time on the Earth
should also go slower. Where is the flaw?
Does it mean that motion is absolute?"

You probably know that the Earth is moving at about 600 km/s wrt the
CMBR towards the Virgo Cluster, see

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050508.html

"Our Earth is not at rest. The Earth moves around the Sun.
The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy
orbits in the Local Group of Galaxies. The Local Group falls toward the
Virgo Cluster of Galaxies. But these speeds are less than the speed
that all of these objects together move relative to the cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR). In the above all-sky map,
radiation in the Earth's direction of motion appears blueshifted
and hence hotter, while radiation on the opposite side of the sky
is redshifted and colder. The map indicates that the Local Group
moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial
radiation."

Let's call the Earth B.
Its velocity vB wrt the CMBR is 600 km/s.
Let's call the spaceship A.
Let's assume that A has a velocity vA = 200000 km/s
relative to B, and opposite to the Virgo Cluster.

For SRists, the situation is simple, tA = tB * sqrt(1 - (vA/c)^2),
meaning that B considers that time is "dilated" on A wrt its own time
by the factor tA/tB = sqrt(1 - (vA/c)^2) = 0.74536.

For those who recognize that the CMBR is the rest frame of the
Universe, the spaceship, which has a velocity vA = -200000 km/s
wrt the Earth, has a velocity vCMBR = vA + vB = -200000 + 600 = -199400

km/s wrt the CMBR.
As vB = 600 km/s, for the CMBR observer at absolute rest,
tB = t * sqrt(1 - (vB/c)^2), where t is *any* time interval measured
by him.
As vCMBR = -199400 km/s, for the CMBR observer at absolute rest,
tA = t * sqrt(1 - (vCMBR/c)^2), where t is the same time interval.
Hence,
tA/tB = sqrt(1 - (vCMBR/c)^2) / sqrt(1 - (vB/c)^2)
= sqrt(1 - (199400/c)^2 / sqrt(1 - (600/c)^2)
= 0.74655

But SRists also assume that the spaceship can be considered "at rest",
and that the Earth is "flying in the opposite direction".
Then, they claim that A (the spaceship observer) can rightly consider
that time is "dilated" on B (the Earth) by the *same* factor 0.74536.

This is wrong, because if the Earth were flying in the opposite
direction wrt the spaceship "at rest", its velocity wrt the CMBR
would be 200000 + 600 = 200600 km/s, whereas everybody should know
that it is 600 km/s, an absolute velocity, that doesn't vary according
to an absurd assumption made by Einstein and its followers.

Marcel Luttgens





If A, B and C are situated along a straight line, the relative velocity
between A and B is vA-vB. Then, according to SR, tA/tB (or tB/tA !) =
sqrt(1 - [(vA-vB)/c]^2), which is different from the correct ratio
sqrt(1-(vA/c)^2) / sqrt(1-(vB/c)^2).

Marcel Luttgens


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CMBRs motion wrt the Earth
    ... >> not detect a dipole in the CMBR (Such onject would correspond to ... >> TOM ROBERTS' FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO) ... >> One can consider thay an object A, for instance the Earth, moves ... You can't stupidly use Galilean relativity in this case. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: CMBRs motion wrt the Earth
    ... the CMBR moves wrt the Earth. ... TOM ROBERTS' FRAME IN WHICH THE CMBR DIPOLE MOMENT IS ZERO) ... You can't stupidly use Galilean relativity in this case. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Van Flandern & Rethinking Relativity?
    ... >> You drew the world lines with the Earth at the origin, ... spaceship defines a reference frame. ... it's resolved by calculating the counter-example ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
    ... together Relativity and the concept of the local ... 'prefered frame of reference' of the CMBR ... at a velocity (relative to Earth) of, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Apparent faster-than-light travel: Wheres my mistake?
    ... in the same frame. ... Earth the time looks longer in such a way that both measure the ... spaceship. ... I mean "rest frame of earth" and "rest frame of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)