Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?


"Simon G Best" <simon.g.best@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:S9-dnbdeFpp3ltLanZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
: Hello!
:
: Thinking about the supposed lack of absolute motion one day, I thought:
: Hang on, what about the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)?
: Isn't that a dead give-away?
:
: The CMBR does a very good impression of being ideal black-body
: radiation. What's more, there are only very slight variations in its
: apparent temperature across the sky - except for a rather prominent bit
: of Doppler shifting, that is. Measure its temperature in different
: directions, and it's as if you can measure your own motion relative to
: the source of the CMBR (the surface of last scattering, if I remember
: correctly). But doesn't this look very much like detectable, even
: measurable, absolute motion?
:
: It puzzled me. Here we are in a universe which, we are told, does not
: have absolute motion included. And yet, when we measure such things as
: mean velocities of galaxy clusters, the apparent CMBR temperature in
: different directions, and stuff like that, there really does seem to be
: something very much like a special velocity. It's as if there is such a
: thing as absolute rest.
:
: How, in a universe free of such absolute motion, could we end up with
: such a special, absolute-rest-like velocity emerging? It looks
: suspiciously like the universe is blatantly contradicting the idea that
: absolute motion's undetectable!
:
: I also pondered the shape of the universe, and ended up considering a
: simple, contrived scenario.
:
: Imagine a flat space-time, with two dimensions of space, and one of
: time. Imagine, also, that the space is toroidal, like the surface of a
: ring doughnut, so that it's like the screen of that Asteroids video
: arcade game from years ago. (The screen is rectangular, and when you go
: off the left hand side, you come back on the right hand side, and when
: you go off the top, you come back on the bottom. It wraps around in
: those two ways.)


If you go off the left and come back on the right upside down you
have a moebius strip. If you go off the top and come back on the bottom
it's a Klein bottle. The danger is the singularity where the inside of
the bottle becomes the outside.



Keeping it simple, this space-time is flat, Euclidean,
: no gravity, no curvature. We can just use Special Relativity.

No we can't.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of
isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton







.