0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion. I am not sure if you still have questions on this.
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion.
and zero gravitational field around the clock. ( But any non zero constant velocity and non zero constant gravitational field should be possible, but I just prefer zero values).
Hi all,So in regards to the calculations I just used the standard non rotating body gravitational time dilation equation and plugged in the values firstly for mercury which gave a time dilation at the surface of 4.02 x10-^10 sec per secAnd for earth surface gave time dilation of:2.79x10^-9 sec per sec
But in regards to the time dilation on the surface of the earth and mercury the "local" gravitational time dilation effect of the sun's input to these two positions is not enough to alter the numbers greatly, definitely not enough for a clock to run slower on mercury than earth.
Indeed there will be a greater local effect between midday and midnight on earth as the suns field will subtract its field from earth's gravitational acceleration/attraction at one point, and add it at the other (aprox plus or minus 6mm per sec ^2)
Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ? Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists.
; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
And if you distil a mixture of sulphuric acid and ethanol you get ethoxyethane- also known as diethyl ether.In this sense there is an ether.
But it isn't the same sense in which the "luminiferous ether" was meant to exist, and nor is this "space is endowed with physical qualities".
The aether as originally conceived has failed to be supported by experimental findings. There is really no need for it now anyway.
I wonder what CMB is moving relative to.
Can we use it as an absolute reference?
What that necessary?
I wonder what CMB is moving relative to. Can we use it as an absolute reference? Why, or why not?
May I inquire as to your motivation for requiring an absolute frame of reference? For Isaac Newton it was needed as a background for velocity. Newton was aware of the problem of action at a distance, but was unable to produce any useful alternative. Mach wondered how rotating bodies bulge at the equator, and supposed that the distant stars provided the local inertial background for this phenomenon. However, neither Newton nor Mach were aware of the concept of fields, and it is the modern concepts of fields which eliminates this problem (i.e. the problem of needing some fixed background, or frame of reference).
Individual photons certainly don't have a rest frame. However, there is a rest frame in which the CMB is almost perfectly isotropic (the deviations from a perfect blackbody spectrum are of the order of 1 part in 100,000), and for convenience we call that the rest frame of the CMB.That frame is essentially the rest frame of the plasma which emitted the CMB, i.e. the surface of last scattering, adjusted for the Hubble flow.Our motion causes anisotropy through simple Doppler shifting: the CMB photons coming from the direction we're currently heading towards get blueshifted, the photons in the opposite direction get redshifted.The Earth's velocity with respect to that frame is a little complicated, because we're orbiting the Sun, which is orbiting within the galaxy, which has its own motion in the local group, etc. Of course all of those motions are operating at different time scales, and different speeds. The shortest period effect is of course due to our orbit around the Sun, but our orbit speed is pretty sedate compared to the other motions I mentioned. So there's noticeable annual variation in the exact amount and location of the anisotropy, but the long period high velocity motions are the major factors controlling the anisotropy.