On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 10:53:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2018 12:31 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 5:46:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that >> > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for >> > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they can >> > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not). >> >> They can define it in words, but can they define it physically. >> >> Brent >> > > They can measure the redshift in all directions, and if it remains > unchanged, they are at rest wrt frame of the CMBR. AG > > > Right. The CMBR defines (we think) a universal reference frame. But > that's not what Jason's talking about. He's saying a given person can > define a universe wide frame in which he is stationary. > > Brent >
Ostensibly, it seems that a frame of absolute rest can be defined as a frame at rest wrt CMBR. It led me to question the foundations of SR. But the existence of THIS frame of absolute rest does not contradict SR, because the correct understanding of SR is that there is no preferred frame for EM radiation; that is, the principle that the SoL is same for all inertial frames remains intact regardless of the existence of a frame defining absolute rest. Put another way, the CMBR is NOT the medium for the wave motion of light. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
