Re: Prefered frame of reference

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:38:49 +0200

Paul Stowe wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:53:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:58:54 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, what is the source of the CMBR?
>>>
>>> [Snip or rote passages...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ref: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
>>>> See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
>>>
>>> OK, now explain this Sam. It's like an old fashion flash
>>> bulb... A pulse of light propagates from the 'source' which
>>> is a very short duration event. Current theory says the
>>> light however will continue to move outward forever, until
>>> interacting with something. The light is not the source.
>>> The CMBR is NOT like the flash bulb analogy, if it were,
>>> then there would be a 'shell' of light NOT a uniform
>>> distributed field.
>>
>>Stowe obviously fails to understand the CMB photos were
>>emitted everywhere.
>
>
> Do you not realize how silly this statement is?

No. Why on earth do you think it's silly? Perhaps because of
the slight, obvious typing mistake, "photos" instead of "photons"?????

> Let's see, you say, "CMB photos were emitted everywhere"

Yes. (photons)

> Hey Dinky, now here's an Immortal Fumble... :)

No. Why on earth do you think so?

> So, we have a rather large army of invisible knomes emitting
> CMB photos everywhere, eh?

Yes, you *really* keep harping on this *obvious* type! Amazing!

> I think, perhaps, you SHOULD stick to parroting others.
>
> Perhaps yu were trying to say that the CMBR 'WAS (is being)
> EMITTED' everywhere.

Yes. He said exactly that.

> If so, yes, that also what I said.

Nice. Then why do you claim that there should be a *shell* of light?

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern