Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Cobe cosmic background radiation preferred frame

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839

    Cobe cosmic background radiation preferred frame

    I found this article a while ago but I forgot to ask about it:
    http://cds.cern.ch/record/554550/files/0205070.pdf

    Anybody knows if this research is discontinued or does it disproves Relativity once and for all but it is simply silently dismissed?


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2017-Mar-05 at 11:32 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,347
    The word preferred in physics means convenient, not absolute, and so has no effect on relativity.

    What you have linked to looks like a bit of woo. The authors seem to think that the Mickelson-Morley experiment was done only once when it was done 15 times up to 1930 in its original form, 6 times using different apparatus, and 11 more times using optical resonators. The authors are unaware that Einstein probably did not know about the MM experiment. The paper was submitted to Nature and obviously rejected because it ended up at Apeiron 10:104-117,2003 - a philosophy journal !
    Reginald T Cahill has 15 "papers" on vixra.org including a geophysics paper of "Dynamical 3-Space and the Earth’s Black Hole: An Expanding Earth Mechanism".

    The conclusion of this 2003 paper is extremely wrong because it is based on ignorance about physics. It is so obviously wrong that no physics journal would publish it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,438
    philippe, consider the quality of this quote when you evaluate this paper.

    "the Michelson interferometer laboratory experiment
    of 1881 [1], and repeated by Michelson and Morley in 1987"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    Oh wow, I assumed it was quality since it's on the CERN Document Server. That's not obvious for the common mortals but thanks I appreciate the warning.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    Sorry to revive the subject but apparently the same paper is in Arxiv:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

    I don't think they allow crackpotteries over there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,372
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Sorry to revive the subject but apparently the same paper is in Arxiv:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065

    I don't think they allow crackpotteries over there.
    They try to keep crackpots out but arxiv is based only on endorsements from other authors. All someone has to do is find either an already endorsed author to co-author with or get an endorsement from someone. It is not peer review.

    The paper was submitted to Nature in 2002 and never published, presumably it failed at peer review.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,774
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    [...] or does it disproves Relativity once and for all but it is simply silently dismissed?
    I have to ask... were you joking or did you seriously consider this to be an option? A bunch of scientists silently waving away their Nobel Prize and place in History, covering up their evidence, but a faithful researcher at Cosmoquest dramatically uncovers the evidence at some hidden away, forgotten webserver at CERN, where the world wide web was born?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    I have to ask... were you joking or did you seriously consider this to be an option? A bunch of scientists silently waving away their Nobel Prize and place in History, covering up their evidence, but a faithful researcher at Cosmoquest dramatically uncovers the evidence at some hidden away, forgotten webserver at CERN, where the world wide web was born?
    Apparently silently dismissing papers was an option back in the days but I am not sure if it is still allowed because nowadays you need to test and prove your theory before publishing it. For example Einstein himself silently dismissed the following:
    - his variable speed of light (VSL) paper back in 1911 (which I think is partially true but is an ATM subject)
    - his theory in stars popping out of nowhere (http://www.npr.org/2014/03/20/291408...-and-its-wrong)
    - his cosmological constant

    But thanks for your help, I appreciate and I have one more question I will post in a different thread.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    They try to keep crackpots out but arxiv is based only on endorsements from other authors. All someone has to do is find either an already endorsed author to co-author with or get an endorsement from someone. It is not peer review.

    The paper was submitted to Nature in 2002 and never published, presumably it failed at peer review.
    Fascinating.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,540
    The work and ideas of Prof. Reginald T. Cahill are not mainstream. They DO represent an interesting intellectual exercise, and you can discuss observations that may confirm or refute them in the Astronomy section, but not here in Q&A. If you want to promote these ideas, you'll need to make sure you have a good handle on them, and them bring them up in ATM. The Q&A section is also not a place for making snide comments about how you can't tell junk from real things that have been retained in arXiv or the CERN collection.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    They try to keep crackpots out but arxiv is based only on endorsements from other authors. All someone has to do is find either an already endorsed author to co-author with or get an endorsement from someone. It is not peer review.
    Also note that the arXiv endorsement system was introduced in 2004 so it was not applied to this preprint. Now the first paper from an author in a category may need endorsement. However submissions "based on subject area, topic, previous submissions, and academic affiliation" may get automatic endorsement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •