Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Answer the question about what is motionless (i.e. how the Earth is moving wrt an object that is truly motionless), then I will explain to you why your posts don't make any sense. I am reading them... it isn't my fault that they don't make sense.

I have answered that question, over and over, and over. And I will answer it again, just for you.

BUT FIRST, I will tell you once again that the answer is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to anything I've been discussing. YOU think it's an essential question, and you are obsessed with it, but it isn't.

Now, to answer the question: In my view of physics, we can never know, for sure, that anything is ABSOLUTELY motionless in the physical sense of the word. On a universal scale, physicists will say that the closest thing to a "motionless" frame is the CMB. And it is, with respect to the earth. As between the two, the earth is moving, not the CMB. But that's still just relative motion.

No, it is completely relevant. Because I want to set up an experiment to see if your understanding of what you are calling LR is correct.

Let's work through this.

In this CMB frame, the Solar system (with the Earth along with it) is moving in some direction, right?

Do you agree with this statement?

Yes, I agree. And I will try to hear you out. Then, return the favor, and I will show you why it IS irrelevant. But, for now, let's go with the premise that it is, as you claim, "completely revlevant." Now what?

So...

If I speed send something very fast (be it photons or some other particle) in same direction that the Solar system is travelling throught the CMB... this particle will be going faster than the earth. In this case time will slow down.

If I send something at the same speed wrt to the Earth in the opposite direction, the particle will be going slower than the earth. In this case time will appear to speed up wrt the Earth.

And... if I send something with the same speed wrt to the Earth in a perpendicular direction, the particle will be going the same speed as the earth with no time dilation at all.

Do you agree with all of this (read this carefully before responding)?

I'll try to take these one at a time, but it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say:



1. " Opposite direction" of what? The direction that the earth is travelling through the CMB, that it?

2. "the particle will be going slower than the earth." Slower compared to what? The CMB itself?

3. "In this case time will appear to speed up wrt the Earth" What do you mean by "time?" The rate of a clock? Which clock are you talking about?

LOL... So you are arguing that LT can use different frames of reference? Huh..

And to think when Lorentz proposed his theory he said there was only ONE true frame of reference which is why he proposed an ether to use as that frame.

I'm not going to get involved with you and your nonsense right now, Parry. I'm trying to stay with Max regarding the point he's trying to make.

Well, Max, I thought you were going to stay and demonstrate a point. I asked for clarification hours ago, and not a word from you. I will interpret your questions in my own way (they are unclear as written) and answer them as follows:

From the CMB frame at a particular point:
1. would be going the fastest
2. would be going the slowest
3. would be in between those two, in terms of speed.

Again, as gauged from the CMB frame, clocks on the objects would be like this:

1. the slowest
2. the fastest
3. in the middle (assuming it maintained it's inertia motion in the original direction also)

Is that what you're asking? Does that answer your question? If so, now what?

Again, Layman... you will have to be patient when I leave you to attend to my real life. As I have said, talking to you isn't the only thing I do in life. I am sorry for not getting back to you "hours ago".



I accept this.... but in order for us to come up with an experiment that would test your view of the Universe we need to be more specific. I want to make a bunch of statements that I believe are true given your view of the Universe. Let me just make several statement and you can tell me where we start to disagree.

Let's take three particles that all go the same speed when we shoot them out of our particle gun.

Do you agree that

1) the Earth is moving in the CMB frame in a specific direction?

2) If we shoot a particle, let's call it particle A in that direction from the Earth (assume the gun is attached to the Earth) it will be going faster than the Earth.

3) If we should another particle, let's call it particle B in the opposite direction from the Earth it will be going slower than the Earth.

4) That in this case Particle B will be going slower than particle A.

5) If a particle is shot in between these two directions (90% if you will) it will also be going slower to particle A (let's call this particle C.


Do you agree with all of these statements so far?

The earth's motion is often given as an "averaged out" total speed, but the motion is actually quite complex. The earth is:

1. rotating on it's axis at a certain speed and direction
2. orbiting the sun at a certain speed and direction
3. Orbiting (together with the solar system as a whole) around the galactic barycenter at a certain speed and direction
4. Moving, together with the galaxy as a whole, toward the "great attractor" at a certain speed and direction.

My answers are ignoring most of these complex motions in order to give a simplified answer. I am treating your questions as asking about speed and direction only with respect to #4.

With the qualifications I just gave, I'll just say "yeah" to your particle questions. What does an experiment of MY particular views have to do with anything pertaining to the theoretical premises of either SR or LR?

WHAT is the relevance? Do you have any point? What is your point? An experiment?

Hmmmm.... you aren't answering my yes or no questions with a yes or a no.

Do you agree that my statements are true for any given instant? And that over a period of a fraction of a second all of these statements are true for all intents and purposes for an particle gun attached to the Earth?

Or are you rejecting my statements altogether? If you are rejecting my statements altogether than we need to come up with a hypothetical laboratory where we can consider the implications of your view of the Universe.

Of course. Science is based on experiment. If I am going to take your ideas seriously as scientific ideas, we need to come up with an experiment that will test your ideas.

What I am setting up is the point that in your view of the world, direction matters.

If two particles are shot at the same speed wrt the Earth, they will be going different speeds wrt the CMB frame.

Do you agree with this statement?

What does this have to do with absolute motion?

Create you own "hypothetical laboratory." Go out in your backyard and shoot a rifle in 3 directions. Measure the distance travelled by each and the time it took. Get out your slide rule and calculate those speeds from the frame of reference of the CMB. Do Lorentz transformations on them all. Then get back to me and tell me what you found out that's RELEVANT, eh?

Do you have a point? If so, just make it.

Forget about the hypothetical laboratory.

This is the important question.

Then do something relevant. Go out and TEST the theory of special relativity (I don't mean the Lorentz transformations, I mean SR). You know, the SR which you claimed has bee "proven."

You don't have it. So SR isn't science, is that what you're saying?

Do you have a point that's RELEVANT, or not?

Then answer the question please.

Depends on the direction they are shot, but let me put it this way. As I said, there are many complex motions you would have to consider. Do you have a point?

If you were at rest with respect to the CMB, and if you shot 4 bullets in 4 different directions, then, RELATIVE to the CMB:

1. All 4 would be moving
2. If all 4 were shot at the same speed, then all would be moving at the same speed.
3. If different, then different.

Now what? Do you have a point?