Re: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.

On Sep 1, 10:14 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references.

You assume facts not in evidence.

No, this is no assumption. CMBR dipole proves there is an absolute
stationary frame of reference. The requirement to have the laws of
physics invariant from each frame of references to another is a very
fundamental principle. <shrug>

Yes, the CMBR determines a local
dipole=0 frame. But there's no evidence that it is "absolute" or
"stationary" (using the usual meanings of those words).

Well, Peter rejected Christ three times. How many times have you
rejected this experimental result?

Indeed
measurements of distant galaxies interacting with the CMBR indicate the
galaxies are approximately at rest wrt the CMBR where they are located,

Oh, this is the first time I have heard of this nonsense. You must be
desperate.

and yet those galaxies have significant redshifts (i.e. they are moving
rapidly wrt us) -- this implies there is nothing "absolute" or
"stationary" about the CMBR at all.

You don't make any sense at all.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether.

Hmmm. The physicists of the day concluded just the opposite.

Not really. The Voigt transform was based on an earlier experiment of
Michelson which was essentially the same as the Michelson-Morley
experiment except that the latter had much higher degree of accuracy.
The Voigt transform must be referenced to the very stationary
background of the Aether. The Lorentz transform is just a
modification of the Voigt transform to satisfy the principle of
relativity which then allows the insignificance of the absolute frame
of reference.

And today we us no aether to explain this result.

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

There is no "demands" here, but
yes, one can construct an aether theory which is in agreement with this
one result -- but if one includes ALL of the experiments, the "aether"
becomes experimentally unobservable and the theory becomes
experimentally indistinguishable from SR (or possibly the theory "lives
in the errorbars", which nobody has demonstrated is possible).

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

The world we inhabit exhibits quantum phenomena, and GR is incompatible
with all current quantum theories.

Because SR/GR both rejects the Aether. <shrug>

To resolve the twin's paradox
with time dilation, you must abandon the principle of relativity.

Nonsense. You STILL don't understand SR. <shrug>

Apparently you have not understood the Lorentz transform to see the
very existence of the twin's paradox. <sigh>

.

Relevant Pages