Mainstream GR versus Farsight, mote in their eye or beam in his?

And we certainly have our fair share of them here, particularly those banned from other sites like Farsight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

" except you are the one endlessly using the word " interpretations/interpretation ", correct? "-- and also--
In my irrelevant opinion, this book's explanation is best: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Exposition-Einstein/dp/B000JZX1AM

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The most obvious flaw is that if Alice were to try to fire a pulse of light vertically she would have to know the speed through the ether to calculate the appropriate angle. Big E say all velocity is relative. Farsight say all velocity is absolute?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I say motion is relative, but I also say that when it's relative to the CMBR rest frame, it's effectively absolute, because the universe is as absolute as it gets. Have a read of Doug Scott's CMB FAQ page and note this:

How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB? Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics...

 

Close says motion is absolute and you say motion is relative - can we discard Close on the grounds of him talking nonsense?

 

^^ hilarious...

 

No, because he isn't. He said this:

"What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time."

There is no magic. There is a reason why you always measure the speed of light to be the same regardless of your motion through space. And that reason is the wave nature of matter. We can diffract electrons, and neutrons, and buckballs. Now look at what Doug Scott said:

"There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe."

Your motion through space is relative to me, the Moon, the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way, and so on. In the end, as measured by the CMB dipole anisotropy, it is relative to the Universe. And that's where the buck stops. Your motion relative to the Universe, is absolute.

 

Did you not read what you quoted? Maybe your comprehension is the problem, not everyone else's misinterpretation of the physics.

Jesus.

 

As the thread title accurately suggests, we actually have a situation that is generally understood and accepted, and another situation of gross misquoting, misinterpreting and obstinence as suggested by the bloody great big beam or log in your own eye.
I'm rather surprised expletive deleted cannot see that.

 

Correlation does not equal correlation. It would be nice if Farsight could do the math to derives motion from slower speed of light for even one single physics application.

 

Why? He'd screw that up too...