Re: Absolute speed through the ether?


"Jack Crenshaw" <jcrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:x6ednfop2dyxe6LUnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Uncle Al wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:
Last night I was watching a show -- originally from BBC -- on Discovery
Channel, which talked about the evolution of the notion of the Big Bang.
Near the end was a discussion of the COBE results.

The thing that got my attention was the statement by one of the
researchers, that the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) was not uniform,
but stronger in one direction than the other. This, he said, was "not
really a difference in the CBR, but due to the motion of the earth
relative to the rest of the universe."

A bit later, they showed a graphic of the radiation, and sure enough,
there's a "hole" in one side, and a brighter spot in the opposite
direction. This researcher repeated the "speed of the earth relative to
the universe" assertion, and said that they could take out the asymmetry
by compensating for the known velocity.

I'm sitting there going "Huh?" I thought that the whole point of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, and Einstein's special theory that came out
of it, was that it's not possible to measure our speed through the
"ether."

Now, it seems, we can do exactly that.

No.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

What does "speed of the earth, relative to the universe" really mean?
Does it mean relative to the average motion of all the parts of the
universe, or relative to the site of the original singularity? Or
perhaps relative to one certain galaxy out of all others?

The thought did occur to me that they're talking about the ACCELERATION
of the earth, due to its orbiting the sun. That would make a modicum of
sense, but that's not what they SAID.

What am I missing here?

Jack

Every direction, all 4(pi) steradians, exactly point at an equidistant
Big Bang. In which direction are you "moving"? If space is not
homogeneous and isotropic then linear and angular momenta,
respectively, are not conserved through Noether's theorem.

But they are.


Ok, now I see that my original suspicions are confirmed. None of you
guys -- including the folks on the BBC special -- have the slightest idea
what you're talking about.

Thanks anyway.

Jack

Schwartz is infamous for his statement:
"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif


What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?


Your answer goes here:

________________________________________________________

Other answers have been:

According to the illiterate crank "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Its two equations.
________________________________________________________

According to the novice mitch sperkins@xxxxxxxxx (or mitchs perkins)

because +v / -v cancel out?
________________________________________________________
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):

Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows

X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)

________________________________________________________
According to glird the tord:

Both x and x' are in the domain of the function x |-> x' such that x' =
x-vt
________________________________________________________

According to Idiot Ian Parker:

We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx

Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
________________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
________________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin Dork Bruere

I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Lying Little *** Matthew Johnson

And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.

Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.

A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".

According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:

"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Dolt "Spirit of Truth"

that math is correct but WRONG
________________________________________________________


Note: some names may be the aliases of a crank or cranks unknown.











.

Quantcast