Re: Prefered frame of reference

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:52:38 GMT

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:16:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:31:54 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>> <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:31:58 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>>><feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>
>[snip older stuff]
>
>
>>>>>Where is the conclusion assumed if one measures the temperature of the
>>>>>CMBR at different times and compares the results to the predictions of
>>>>>the BBT?
>>>
>>>Hello?
>>
>>
>> Sigh,... As I said it is not worth attempting in this forum. OK,
>> a summary. Assume the big bang, inflation, ... etc. Then you say, if
>> ... then ..., right?
>
>Right. One assumes the Big Bang (inflation is not needed for this, BTW)
>and uses that to make predictions. These predictions are then checked.
>Thus the conclusion (the outcome of the observations done for checking)
>is *not* assumed, contrary to your assertion.
>
>
>> One looks to place all observations in the framework
>> of that assumption.
>
> Err, no. One makes predictions about what one should observe, and then
> tries to find the predicted stuff in the observations.
>
> Hint: this method is called *science*.

 Pssst, science is controlled studies & experiments. Soft sciences involve
 observation and hypotheses only. Psychology is such a 'soft science'.

>> If they can't (which has happened several times now) they go back to their
>> drawing boards and come up with an explanation.
>
> I was talking specifically about the observed change in temperature of
> the CMBR here. Don't move the goalposts!

 I'm not the moving goalposts. I was just commenting hey, I see'em moving them.

>> Inflation was one such 'fix', dark energy is another.
>
> Both entirely irrelevant for the observed change in temperature of the
> CMBR.

 I don't think 'Dark Energy' is irrelevant, however, this is all I have to
 say about thaat...

>> I am in no mood to get into an acerbic debate about models that require
>> complex series of assumptions,
>
> Neither inflation nor dark energy are "complex" assumptions, and both of
> them have nothing to do with the observed change in temperature of the CMBR.
>
>> only that I claim that there exists no exclusivity that precludes other,
>> different models.
>
> If these other models can describe all of the observations, feel free
> to present them (and please check beforehand that you even *know*
> all of the observations!).
>
>
>> I (and you) could write volumes but
>> the topic, and my prespective, surely guarantees disagreement. I'd rather
>> be up front now and agree to disagree, and leave it alone.
>
> In other words: you prefer to ignore the evidence.

 Fine, believe what you wish...

>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> You *do* know that simultaneity is relative, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> In propagation of information, yes.
>>>
>>> No, in general.
>>
>>
>> No, not 'in general'. There exists, 'right now' (this instant) throughout
>> the universe.
>
> Present evidence for that assertion, please.

 Is space-time 4D?

>> If I want to see what happened at 'right now' say one light
>> year distant I'd have to have a scope capable of 'seeing' that distance
>> with the requisite resolution, and, wait the year for the light (information)
>> from that location to get here to me to observe it.
>
> You would then not see "right now" in an absolute sense, but only "right
> now" for your frame of reference.

 FOR's are abitrary coordinates mapped upon an independent reality. An
 'instant' in that reality is also independent of those mappings.

>> Now that means the instant 'now' is one year in my past but, at said location
>> it is also one year later.
>
> Irrelevant to the argument.
>
>>>> But the issue is not propagation of information, it what is it *now*.
>>>> *now* is relative.
>>
>> I disagree. A snapshot instant can encompass the entire universe.
>
> Some moving relative to you will say that in your picture which you
> call a snap shot, different parts of the universe will be pictured
> at different times. Only for you, all parts are at the same time.

 No, they wouldn't.

>> It is only when you attempt to discern what happened at an arbitrary x, y,
> z from somewhere else do you have to wait and account for the travel time
>> for the information about 'event' to transit to you.
>
> This has nothing to do with "travel time".
>
>>>> That means, at every position in the universe as of now.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense. "now" depends on the frame of reference.

 OK, forget it...
 
>> OK, we saw SN97A in 1997 (call that 'now') so does that mean it occurred
>> in 1997 ??? Of course not,
>
> Depends on the observer. For anyone on the Earth, "now" is approximately
> the same - the deviations are so small that they are entirely negligble.
>
> However, someone moving at high speed relative to the Earth will differ.
>
>> we're savy enough to realize that it took time for the information to go
>> from there to here and 'calculate' the 'when' it actually occurred. It
>> most certainly wasn't now (1997).
>
> You *still* think that I'm talking about travel times. I am not.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>> When 'at rest' WRT the CMBR
>>>>>
>>>>> WRT the *source* of the CMBR.
>>>>
>>>> OK, what is the source of the CMBR?
>>>
>>> The plasma in the early universe.
>>>
>>>> Is the source still present?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Right, according to the BBH today there is no source, just the residual
>> photonic field. Thus my point when saying, wrt the CMBR, not a now
>> extinct use to be source.
>
> As I explained, saying that one is at rest wrt radiation makes no sense.

 I think it does to most...

>>>> I 'think' it is, but that's NOT the current accepted theory.
>>>
>>> Nice. Where is your evidence for your idea?
>>
>> OK, see,
>>
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm
>>
>> Ref Article, "The Nature of Charge"
>>
>> Note that with the definition of elemental charge as the divergence
>> of a compressible field we get the relationship,
>>
>> E = h(nu) = 3kT
>>
>> and
>>
>> nu = q/m
>
> I assume that E is energy, h is Planck's constant, nu is frequency,
> k is Boltzmann's constant, T is temperature, q is charge and m is mass,
>
> right?

 Right...

> If yes, then there seems to be something wrong with your second formula:
> the dimensions don't work out. A charge divided by a mass can't be
> a frequency.

 Did you even look at the provided reference?

   "... When applied to the Continuum Mechanics of Electromagnetism
    where is this? There is a fundamental property that has remained
    undefined (and given arbitrary units), this is charge [q]. So,
    if we assign to charge the units [kg/sec] and assume it is a
    result of the definition above, what is the result? ..."

 Then, further down we find a prediction,

   "... As shown above, Div v = nu (a the characteristic frequency
    in Hertz). With our definition, the charge to mass ratio would
    suggest that the mass, seen in matter, could be some sort of
    resulting stable manifestation of this harmonic oscillation in
    the field. ..."

 No, didn't think so... I provided the reference to specifically answer
 this question (as it has been asked before) in enough detail.

> And what frequency would that be? What does it measure? What
> is oscillating there?
>
>> Thus,
>>
>> hq/m = 3kT
>>
>> Then reworking, solving for T we get,
>>
>> T = hq/3km = 2.8 °K
> >
>> Which would suggest that the value of T is explicitly tied to the electron's
>> properties.
>
> So you inserted the charge and the mass of the electron here? If I do
> that (ignoring the problems with the units), I get
>
> T = 2.814 K
>
> (using h=6.626 * 10^(-34) Js, q = 1.602 * 10^(-19) C, k = 1.380 *
> 10^(-23) J/K and m = 9.11 * 10^(-31) kg).
>
> How do you explain the difference between this value and the actually
> measured temperature of 2.73 K?

 Virtual pairs are off-mass... Thus m isn't 9.1E-31, its higher. It suggests
 We're seeing ZPE effects.

>> The test of whether electrons hum would be the isolation chamber
>> discussed in another post in this thread. As far as I'm aware, this aspect
>> has never been tested, or even attempted.
>
> I must have missed that post.
>
> Well, you seem to suggest that electrons constantly give off electromagnetic
> radiation corresponding to a temperature of 2.8 K - do I understand you right
> there? If yes, where does this energy come from?

 Ah, thus the Dark Energy connection... General overview concept (no deep
 details here) see,

 http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_d.htm

> [snip]
>
>>>> That source is long since extinguished.
>>>
>>> Yes. So what? Why can't we be moving wrt a source which is already
>>> "extinguished"?
>>
>> That which remains is all we can observe.
>
> What has that to do with what I actually said above?
>
>>>>> Saying that one is rest wrt radiation doesn't make much sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is a uniform isotropic sea of photons that has a uniform
>>>> cross-sectional flux of 3.5E-06 Watt/m^2, it does, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> "being at rest wrt A" means that I am not moving wrt A, and that
>>> A is not moving wrt me. Since the CMBR *obviously* moves wrt to me
>>> (at c!), I am obviously not at rest wrt it! And that holds for
>>> *any* electromagnetic radiation!
>>
>> OK, as a swimmer if I am 'at rest' with the surrounding water are the
>> water molecules at rest wrt me?
>
> In the mean, they are. And when you say that you are at rest wrt the
> water, you essentially *also* mean that you are at test wrt the *mean*
> of the movement of the water molecules.
>
> So your analogy fails.
>
>> No, the net sum momentum vector is zero (no net current) but the
>> individual molecules are moving at a RMS ~ 330 m/sec.
>
> Irrelevant.

 Quite relevant.

>> Ditto for the CMBR. The photons crossing a fixed plane defines the flux
>> at that plane. Thus value may remain fixed but the photons constituting
>> those in the plane change constantly.
>
> I have no clue what the "fixed plane" you introduce now is supposed to
> be for.

 A mental aid. But, never mind.

[snip...]

>>> It is a "preferable" frame in the sense that one can easily detect one's
>>> motion wrt it. However, that does in now way imply that it is a
>>> "preferred" frame of reference in the sense as that term is in general
>>> used in physics!!! (i.e., the laws of nature are the same in it as in
>>> any other frame)
>>
>> But there is a physical discernable difference. The laws don't change
>> but the state of affairs do.
>
> Since "preferred state of reference" does *not* mean (when used usually
> in physics" that there is a "physical discernable difference", but that
> "the laws are different", this is entirely irrelevant.

 OKie Dokie...

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... > Motion deserves the same priority in science as mass, distance, temperature, charge, and ... It's properties are speed and distance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time
    ... Then we'll be able to figure out the "mass" of a magnetic monopole ... just as an electron has a charge of 1 electronvolt. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: you wont assess me connecting outside your immense bomber
    ... it'll yesterday precede the gravel. ... criticizes a presentation too evident round her total exam. ... facts terminate in charge of dirty societys, ... Tell Edward it's exclusive caning along a mass. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > back to this part of what the mass situation might be described from. ... > charge and a volume of space. ... A particle may be charged or neutral while having mass, ... square of the speed of light in vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > back to this part of what the mass situation might be described from. ... > charge and a volume of space. ... A particle may be charged or neutral while having mass, ... square of the speed of light in vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading