Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MacM
That value was merely considering that the absolute motion measured to the CMB by different methods over several years has varied from 280km/sec to around 360km/sec. I used 300km/sec as a general number wich is 0.001c gamma for that is 1.0000005.
But it is important to note that the absolute motion will have a greater impact on tests if the test is pushed a near as possible to a v = c. That should be clear now from my prior post where 0999c particles would have a 0.001 deviation due to the added motion to the CMB when orientation is changed.
|
Thanks.
But didn't you,
in an earlier post^, caution us against making
ad hoc, a priori assumptions? In this case, why
assume that the motion of earthly labs is ~300 km/s? Couldn't it just as well be ~300 nm/s? or ~0.99999c?
Once you put some kind of number on the table (even if it's only an OOM, for back-of-the-envelope purposes), it becomes a whole lot easier to look at (historical) experiments and observations, for 'motion wrt an absolute frame' signals, n'est pas?
So how about this simplifying assumption: whatever the 'absolute frame' is, there will be a ~24 hour* periodic signal in any test data taken anywhere on the Earth's surface (except, perhaps, at the poles)? If you're OK with that, then all (!) we would need to do is do a Fourier transform on any dataset**, and look for a signal at ~24 hours (plus harmonics), right?
One advantage of this approach is that it is 'blind' to details of the 'absolute frame' - any ~24 hour (nearly) periodic signal would hint at such a frame, right?
^
"You really shouldn't assume anything. That is what got you in trouble at the outset. No the CMB may not be at rest"
*
It might, of course, be a ~12 hour signal, if it picked up only the amplitude.
**
or equivalent; I'm not saying any one analytic technique is better than any other, just giving an example