Source: http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

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.

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

Regarding the SEP (Strong Equivalence Princile) yes. 

Regarding the fact that it is impossible as somebody says to state a fix energy for a system since speed is not an absolute concept might be overcome.

This is very good question. Let us see some details of this picture. We as observers are located on Earth which makes some movement in the universe. Even we assume that measurement was done on COBE spaceship or other, their movement is related to the movement of Earth. In large distance there is no big difference between movement of Earth and spaceship. Even movement of Earth relative universe is so slow, that we can assume that Earth is in rest. This is first assumption. Now assume that we have 2 observers that have constant speed one relative other (this speed may be close to the speed of light). Since observer A1 sees homogeneous isotropic universe, then we can tell the same about observer A2. So they both agree about geometry of universe. Now. Observer A1 observes background radiation with frequency w1. Does it mean that observer A2 measures the same frequency of background radiation. Of course not. It will be another frequency w2 and this means that observer A2 has different estimation of age of universe. To make proper calculation you need to keep in mind that background radiation comes from the past and is orthogonal to relative speed of observers A1 and A2. Only one thing. I write text on the fly. We need to keep in mind that there is some symmetry between observers A1 and A2. I think to return to this question later.

There is no guarantee that the relative motion center of observable ancient radiation has any other significance.  Of course it might, but it is speculation.  If a theory were proposed to connect the motion center of this ancient radiation with a preferred clock synchronization, then likely we would have a problem testing it.  if a testable theory can be proposed, by all means someone do so.

A second problem is that even if preferred motion states were existing and could be tested, they most likely are not universal.  I suspect that will shock and offend some ether theorists, but even if there were an ether (or its abstract equivalent, we can call any preferred frame an ether), there is no guarantee it is not fluid and parts of it in motion relative to other parts of it.

This is more than theoretical speculation.  Light does move "relative to" gravitational fields in some sense.  Light orbiting a dense object would be dragged around with the object.  However this is only detectable by observers outside the strong field that has captured the light.

Even if we presume there is a gravitational basis for light motion, undetectable while we are ourselves trapped in it, there have been other threads on RG asking about using the CMBR as a reference, but no one has given a rationale connecting the ancient radiation field with the current undetectable gravitational reference.  Even if they were connected in the past, there might have been relative motions at creation that by now would have drifted them apart.  Perhaps also not, I'm just saying ...

    Dear Stefano,

    I do not know if I am understanding well the question. But, there is a clear difference between aether and a microwave background reference system: everybody was assumed to have a different velocity with respect to the aether, while with respect to the microwaves everybody is with the same velocity, i.e. c. The microwave system cannot measure the difference of velocities between two given observers!

   Perhaps it would be interesting to explain where it is the form to overcome the difficulty that I have mentioned because I cannot see it. 

Stefano,

There are at least two viable interpretations of the CMB, while its observables can be more complicated than temperature anisotropy. For example, there is hemispherical power asymmetry which is due to how the CMB is projected through the universe to our location. Then there are B-modes that can arise from several sources such as gravitational lensing.

Nonetheless, our local motion relative to the CMB source does induce a dipole moment. The absolute reference frame you mention has some connection to Mach’s principle, but there is clearly no classical ether. Historically there was a new type of aether that Einstein noted, which is when we consider particles relative to each other rather than some type of special background frame. More specifically, it would be the center-of-momentum frame after all particles are taken into consideration. If there actually is some type of special background frame, we simply would not be able to detect it due to special relativity. For example, if there were a single particle moving relative to such background, it would locally be no different from a stationary particle. What we can measure however are two or more particles moving relative to each other.

In conclusion, motion relative to the CMB can be viewed as motion relative to the universe as a whole in the center-of-momentum frame.

   May I suggest you guys to look up my paper "Stat. Mech. of a static distribution of particles"? Only, I'm not sure that I have uploaded it. 

As I promised I returned with calculations. I was need little time since I have done these calculations long time ago. Details you can see in my paper   ePrint 0803.3276 : Lorentz Transformation and General Covariance Principle, 2009, sections 7.6, 7.7. Here I give some explanation which is very important. I considered space like coordinates on 3 dimensional sphere and time coordinate orthogonal to this sphere. As local basis I choose vector tangent to time coordinate and 3 vectors tangent to coordinate line on sphere. It is evident that these vectors are orthogonal one another. Then I normalized these vectors to make sure that I have orthonormal basis, therefore I can use this basis to make proper measurement in gravitational field. Background radiation in this basis has wave vector is (k0,k1,k2,k3) where k0 depends on frequency of background radiation. If we change space like vectors of basis, it means that k0 will be the same. This means independence of frequency from direction. If we consider observer S2 which moves relative considered observer S1, then we can assume that only one space like coordinate changes. Assume x1. Then in plane x0 x1 we have Lorentz transformation which involves appropriate change of k0. It is evident that this change does not depend on space like direction; so observer S2 also observes isotropic background radiation (to honest, I expected to see dependence on direction and explanation of possible anisotropy; but I am glad that I was wrong; anisotropy is possible, because we use specific model, but reality may have slightly different geometry or there may be reason from quantum mechanics or any other theory) . I want to put attention also that there is no symmetry between observers S1 and S2 because observer S2 moves relative gravitational field and this involves different speed of time. However, as I wrote before, observers S1 and S2 have different estimate to age of universe, but both agree that background radiation is isotropic.

Dear Daniel,

"there is a clear difference between aether and a microwave background reference system."

Sure I'm not arguing that this implies an Aether, never mentioned. I only stress the fact that  in Astronomy some are measuring  speed of celestial bodies refferring to such fixed frame and getting good results.

Dear Michael,

"The absolute reference frame you mention has some connection to Mach’s principle, but there is clearly no classical ether. "

It has some connection with Newton's absolute frame too, but Aether is excluded at least in the way it was originally conceived.. we have a cavity where no preferred direction of microwave photons is present. Since these are detectable photons, it would be possible to detect a blueshift of them in the direction of motion of the detector.

Let's assume that the peak frequency of the black body radiator detected by my spaceship in its present state is 500 GHZ.  

If I accelerate in one direction, I will detect anyway for such direction the peak of the CMBR incoming  photons blueshifted at for example 501 GHZ. This is due to the fact that  regardless of their direction, the detector will  register a variation of energy on the detected photons (much stronger for the ones posessing a component parallel to the direction of speed).

Dear Stefano,

Yes, the aether proposed by Newton and others was wrong, but there could still be an undetectable aether in the classical sense. The new aether proposed by Einstein is a little different and works on the basis of particles being relative to each other rather than an absolute reference frame. For example, you could have a system of particles where the center-of-momentum frame is moving with respect to some absolute (undetectable) aether. We simply would not be able to detect this and thus would treat the center-of-momentum frame as stationary relative to the system. Therefore, one could say that the new aether is in a sense a medium induced by each particle’s field(s), which I refer to as vacuum energy.

There is also substantial evidence that the CMB is being projected from the center of a cosmological-scale gravitational potential to local observers (gravitational lensing). Thus if what we have is a classical black body source at the center of such universe, it would be relative to the center-of-mass frame. Besides the confirmed hemispherical power asymmetry due to this, the results will not deviate from the expected black body spectrum locally, as the source would have emitted the radiation at constant z (gravitational redshift). For big bang cosmology, the CMB relative to the center-of-momentum frame should still be valid, as metric expansion is applied rather than classical acceleration. Thus our additional motion that theoretically induces the dipole would be from any motion beyond that of metric expansion (relative to the center-of-momentum frame). I'm sure such interpretation is valid in several cosmological models including that of assuming a cosmological-scale cavity.

Michael. If you cannot detect aether, how you can tell about its existence. Physics study only what we can observe, directly or not. All other is science fiction. There is no absolute space, there is no absolute time.

Dear Michael,

"There is also substantial evidence that the CMB is being projected from the center of a cosmological-scale gravitational potential to local observers (gravitational lensing). Thus if what we have is a classical black body source at the center of such universe, it would be relative to the center-of-mass frame"

There is no center of universe in a 3D fashion. We are the expanding center of it, the relic radiation is what we still perceive as the  diminished Planck radiation generated after the simmetry breaking, in a totally different space-time situation.

The space-time in itself which Einstein had to reinstate in order to build his metric theory, is a hypermedium, in which the concept  of the energy stress-tensor and curvature come to be quite powerful.

Aleks,

"If you cannot detect aether, how you can tell about its existence. Physics study only what we can observe, directly or not."

it is difficult to detect something which is omnipresent....reminds me of HIGGS FIELD..

There is difference. There is physical process which allows detecting Higgs field. Therefore Higgs field exists. There is no physical process to detect aether. So aether is speculation and nothing more.

Aleks,

This really lies in the foundations of beyond the standard model physics. For example, consider the possibility that all fields and matter are excitations of an underlying Planck-scale structure. We may not be able to directly detect this level of nature; however, this does not mean it cannot exist. Optimally one would want the simplest hypothesis that explains all physical phenomena in terms of arriving at a final theory. Although any motion relative to a Planck-scale background (a good analogy is a 3D spring-mass system in the simplest case) would not be detectable by the excitations (particles/fields) arising upon it, such would nonetheless be crucial in formulating a theory of everything or grand unified theory. Thus it would be testable like any other theory; i.e. develop the model based on such assumption, find what the theory predicts and compare it to observations. Unfortunately, there are an infinite amount of increasingly complex theories that will fit observations, so the ultimate goal would then be to select the simplest theory in agreement.

Stefano,

The big bang theory does not fit CMB observations and thus does not work in its current form. It cannot explain hemispherical power asymmetry, smoothness, the magnitude of several multipoles, cold spots or chance alignments. Until these serious problems are resolved, it is no different from trying to apply Newtonian theory to planet orbits. The big bang has also never been proven and continues to be at odds with observations, so why should it be the only option? Regardless, under the hypothesis that the universe originated from a singularity, the resulting big bang would be receding from a central point. Olber’s paradox is commonly applied to claim that the universe is not infinite and thus must have a center.

Furthermore, if the inferred accelerated expansion is instead an illusion due to local geodesic deflecting into a cosmological-scale gravitational potential (i.e. distant objects are accelerating back towards the center), then we would expect things such as hemispherical power asymmetry and the observed smoothness. In this case, the CMB arises as natural black body radiation from what lies at the center of all gravitational potentials, a discrete object. This is reinforced by angular scales and the volume element fitting a static metric up to extreme redshift, where the difference between models exceeds 100x. The hypothesis that objects somehow go through countless mergers to grow by >100x is simply nonsense and not supported by observations.

Either way you look at Einstein’s theory and his new aether, it becomes clear that the medium is relative to particles/fields rather than some absolute aether. However, I do believe he made a crucial error in applying a macroscopic stress-energy tensor rather than microscopic source, as this has substantial effects due to the underlying non-linearity. More precisely, it is the cause of event horizon and gravitational waves, both of which still lack direct confirmation.

Re: "There is no center of universe in a 3D fashion."

This was thought to be true at one time, when it was thought the universe was probably "closed."  However, several studies to find evidence of such closure found none, and evidence from the CMB itself suggests that the universe is "flat" at least out to the scale of the CMB.  Some astrophysicists I have talked with, when asked why we then cannot see "the edge" of the universe, responded that it isn't old enough.  None of this feels very comfortable to me, either the lack of an edge if it is flat, the idea we might see an edge, or that it might be closed and still flat out to the CMB.  But I have no solution for it.  In any of the edge cases, there would be a 3D center.

Is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation used as an absolute reference frame, the one that Newton was looking for?

There is debate over this in cosmology. But consider this. When the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is studied all relative motion with respect to the CMB is removed. That is, any redshift/blueshift of the Earth, Solar System, Milky Way etc. relative to the CMB are subtracted out from the raw data. It is only then that we can view the CMB of the entire sky. There are a lot of other considerations also when getting the “final picture” of the CMB but the redshift/blueshift correction is primary. So in that sense the cosmic microwave background is treated as an absolute reference frame. The important thing to remember is that this “absolute” reference frame works when your observation time is small (relative to the age of the universe). Certainly the time frame of all astronomical measurements are infinitesimal compared to the age of the universe (~15 billion years).

So is this Newton's absolute reference frame? Not exactly, because Newton had no idea that the universe was expanding. So space can not be considered an absolute reference frame. But, as mentioned, over a short period of time the expansion is negligible - especially locally. That leaves the question: is there an absolute time? There is something called “cosmic time” which is a measure of the age of the universe. Cosmic time is independent of any relativistic effects. Again, consider that we determine the age of the universe relative to the time frame of the CMB after all relative redshifts/blueshifts are taken into account. Cosmic time (the age of the universe) is invariant to all space-time transformations. Cosmic time is different then Newton's sense of time, but in the classical limit (short time frames, short distances, redshift/blueshift corrected) Newton's “absolute reference frame” works. Einstein was well aware of this fact. In both special and general relativity (SR, GR) reduce to Newtonian physics in the classical limit. This was an underlying boundary condition to all his relativistic theories. Of course, the expansion of the universe was discovered after Einstein developed SR & GR. The expansion implies the universe has a finite age thus the idea of cosmic time was needed explain the time-frame of the expansion itself. Cosmic time is an invention of neither Einstein or Newton - it comes from the big bang theory. Cosmic time connects both Einstein's “relative” time and space with Newton's “absolute” time and space. Ultimately, both are connected to the expansion of the universe and the beginning of time - a short time prior to the CMB (~400, 000 yr).

This is a good question that has confused many people. Yes, the "mean motion" of CMB photons does pick out a special frame. This does not violate relativity theory, because this special frame is purely mathematical. It is not special in any physical sense. We test that statement (and thereby test the foundations of relativity theory) by looking experimentally for "preferred-frame" effects. So far we have not found any, to high precision, so relativity is safe --- for now.

The second part of the question, about whether one could associate the CMB rest frame with Newton's absolute space, is trickier. Experts are divided about the extent to which spacetime within General Relativity can still be said to be "absolute" in the Newtonian sense. But insofar as it can, "absolute spacetime" is likely to be defined by the mean rest frame, not just of CMB photons, but of the entire matter and energy content of the Universe, including not just stars and galaxies, but also dark matter, vacuum energy, and gravitational waves. 

Dear Paul K. Sherard ·

"There are a lot of other considerations also when getting the “final picture” of the CMB but the redshift/blueshift correction is primary."

So it is used as a good approximation only in space far enough from masses, otherwise  gravitation would affect singnificantly the perceived frequencies. So Penzias and Wilson detected a blueshifted version of CMBR, this is quite reasonable.

Dear James,

"Yes, the "mean motion" of CMB photons does pick out a special frame. "

So it seems to be a reliable tool..

But insofar as it can, "absolute spacetime" is likely to be defined by the mean rest frame, not just of CMB photons, but of the entire matter and energy content of the Universe, including not just stars and galaxies, but also dark matter, vacuum energy, and gravitational waves.

It would be interesting if those two matched... If the universe were an isolated system what you say would work in general...but it seems that the universe is expanding not at its own energy expenses, driven by this sort of dark energy, and this additional contribuition migh be not uniform....

Either we didn't understand a lot of physics in the long range (very possible) or there is a constant energy injection in the universe (an expanding Higgs field??) which was always active since the beginning, not only in the most famous instant..

   It has taken too much time to separate philosophy, religion and science in the history of the mankind for coming back to it.

Time is not a eternal object but it is physical magnitude as can be energy or linear momentum. In fact we could not be defined properly energy without its existence. Therefore it seems reasonable to speak only of time as a measurable feature of the matter which is associated to the state of motion of observer as SR says or GR in a more general context. Every day these relationships are measured in the particles accelerators.

 It has taken too much time to separate philosophy, religion and science in the history of the mankind for coming back to it.

Just some hundred years.... a second in a year, in the economy of the universe so far....

Because during some time I did not received emails about this post I will answer questions that was addressed to me.

it is true that Higgs boson we observed indirectly. However we observed some reactions and events that was predicted by theory which supports Higgs boson. It does not mean that there may exist other theory which explains such events and this is why community looks for other tests to find out did we observe Higgs boson or not. However each confirmation of Higgs boson theory increases our assurance that Higgs boson exists. Higgs boson may create some problems in our understanding of general relativity. However this is out of this thread and I wrote about this before.

Aether is some kind of mystical substance which does not have any real model behind it. We speak about aether like ancient man about god when he was not able to explain some events in the nature. However as far as people used aether to explain some events they was not able to give explanation.

Original question was if microwave background imply return to absolute Newton space and time. The answer is no. Even one observer moves relative another observer, they both will observe the same microwave background, probably with different frequency and therefore estimating different age of universe.

From this point of view it is not clear why in some answers we separate time from space to find out absolute value of time which passed after big bang. This is nonsense. We can speak about age of universe in our reference frame, but in other reference frame age will different. Time is some kind of generalization of periodic process. However you need to remember that this periodic process happens in space and time.

To clarify, aether can refer to two things. The first is Michelson-like aether where an absolute medium would exist irrespective of any particles or fields. The second is an Einstein-like aether where the medium is relative to particles and fields. There are cases where the second becomes in agreement with a Newtonian frame. For example, consider the center-of-momentum frame of the universe. This frame is without a doubt relative to the second type of aether, i.e. with respect to that of particles and fields. Such frame could also be static relative to an underlying Planck-scale structure, e.g. a basic analogy would be a spring-mass system with excitations upon it. At the same time, the center-of-momentum frame of matter may not be static relative to such background (if it exists in the first place). So although it is not testable due to the effects of special and general relativity, one cannot rule out the possibility.

What the CMB dipole does imply however is relative motion to the center-of-momentum frame, which in big bang cosmology is built upon accelerated metric expansion. Although I do not support big bang cosmology, one could imagine a theoretical point when the universe was much denser/smaller. You can continue contracting space-time until the CMB is initially emitted, where the radiation is relative to the center-of-momentum frame.

Furthermore, this all ties into Mach’s principle, which was the inspiration for theories such as Brans-Dicke. Recently I’ve gotten back to developing a classical unified field theory and I’d have to say that Brans-Dicke was much closer than Einstein, although still not quite sufficient in terms of unifying electrodynamics with general relativity.

http://blogs.epfl.ch/hep/documents/C%20Brans%20-%20H%20Dicke%20-%20Mach%27s%20Principle%20and%20a%20Relativistic%20Theory%20of%20Gravitation.pdf

Dear Michael,

I found this quite interesting from the Dicke paper...

"it can be easily shown that uncharged spinless particles whose masses are position dependent no longer move on geodesics of the metric."

a potential problem with SEP...

"This is nonsense. We can speak about age of universe in our reference frame, but in other reference frame age will different."

It is nonsense to think that the age for the universe would be different in another space-time reference frame. Yes, maybe our local clock (our wristwatch) would advance at a slower or faster rate relative to whatever reference frame you want to choose but for an isotropic homogeneous universe such as ours the age of the universe is determined but the Hubble constant (not a clock). The observed Hubble constant "now" would be measured the same in any other space-time reference frame in the universe. How could it be otherwise? (That's rhetorical question.)

“ It has taken too much time to separate philosophy, religion and science in the history of the mankind for coming back to it.”

Well if the many-worlds interpretation (with infinite upon infinite universes) and the concept of a “multiverse” is actually taken seriously as scientific theories than we have already passed into the realm of philosophy. There is no reason why one cannot conjecture about the stage or stages that led to the “quantum fluctuation” that gave rise to our universe. Philosophical pondering can often lead to scientific ideas. There is no need to diminish such thoughts just because it does not fit into one's particular view of the universe or one's concept of what is or is not scientific.

     Imagine that there are more universes that for definition cannot interact with ours, how can we be aware of their existence? On the other hand, time is as space, you can imagine that never finished from your side because it seems that the distance goes to the infinite, but you know that at certain moment you cannot be further because the matter what makes space real and no a mathematical object in a blackboard. What is important of the space is the distance between two points which is the one that you can measure and the same with respect to time: the time elapsed between two events.

It is nonsense to think that the age for the universe would be different in another space-time reference frame

If you did not read my previous posts, I offer you to do simple homework and calculate Lorentz transformation in Friedman space. If you believe that time is absolute I would suggest deeper dive into general relativity. Nobody said that this is the ultimate theory. However before you develop new theory, you need to know existing and to understand where it fails. Then you will be able to offer crucial test to verify your new theory.

To make calculation you need to choose reference frame. However if you stop at this point, you will lose something essential. This is where I agree and not agree with my teacher. He said me that I need to learn geometry without using of coordinates. I agree, because in this case I see general picture; I do not agree because to make measurement I need to select reference frame. Returning to your questions. If I restrict myself to selected reference frame, I will know specific values of distance and time interval; however I will miss picture and how these values looks like in other reference frame. From Newton point of view, Copernic is right, and Ptolemey is not. From Einstein point of view both pictures are good. However in Copernic reference frame calculations are simpler.

"To make calculation you need to choose reference frame. However if you stop at this point, you will lose something essential."

Yes..

I don't share the viewpoint according to which the GRT it is normal for somebody to affirm that GRT is not intrinsically conservative... infact the gravitational energy is not taken in account as Feyman, Thirring, Kalman; Landau and Others pointed out. Does this depend on how the SEP is conceived?? Or by the fact that I have to use different metrics for example Schartzshild for non inertial and Peinlevè-Gullstrand for inertial reference frames??  Somebody told me....

This and it is quite annoying...

Stefano,

I’m in no way saying that the Brans-Dicke theory is the correct theory, but it is closer than Einstein’s after some considerations. I’ll have the classical unified field theory in a couple of weeks though, so I can’t really go over the details of producing a proper macroscopic theory until released.

With that being said however, I can list a few problems with EFEs:

1. The coupling to the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor is wrong.

2. If the equivalence principles are valid on a microscopic level, then at least some must be violated at the macroscopic level (due to the non-linearity in general relativity, i.e. the distribution of particles affects solutions).

3. The theory should emit dipole radiation, where the “waves” of metric curvature are directly coupled to electromagnetic radiation.

4. The potential of a single particle should be 1/r; applying this with enough insight will lead you to the proper macroscopic equations.

Michael,

"The coupling to the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor is wrong"

if it was right a unification might have been performed..

"If the equivalence principles are valid on a microscopic level, then at least some must be violated at the macroscopic level (due to the non-linearity in general relativity, i.e. the distribution of particles affects solutions"

Michael the equivalence principle as the principle tested by the eotvos experiment, the WEP is valid in short range where non linearities do not arise, the infringement of it in the long range is crucial for the explanation of the Perihelion precession and light bending.

"The potential of a single particle should be 1/r; applying this with enough insight will lead you to the proper macroscopic equations"

According to what Einstein wrote, the gravitational interaction should go to 0 faster than the other interactions, otherwise no local approximation of any minkowskian space can be performed. If in your model particles possess such 1/r potential, approaching to each particle the field would diverge, making it impossible to comply to SEP, only the WEP.

Stefano,

1. True, but some consider the Kaluza–Klein theory a classical UFT and it reduces to the Einstein/Maxwell equation plus an additional scalar field. I suppose the proper classical UFT would be renormalizable and include neutral fields (my current work).

2. The particular equivalence principle that concerns me is the strong equivalence principle as applied to a stress-energy tensor. One must assume that microscopic gravity is independent of its location in space-time. If only a single particle exists, which I’ll refer to as the test particle, then its field and dynamics follows from ημv. When I introduce other particles and/or free fields, then the field and dynamics follows gμv (the test particle case via geodesic motion). This combined with a stress-energy tensor that has no quantized values of mass/field results in event horizon and singularities, both of which are the reason why the theory is non-renormalizable. Although poorly written, my “Theory of everything” has the exact (classical via 1/r) microscopic solutions for GR. First order approximation can be implemented as a violation of WEP at the macroscopic level; i.e. dipole radiation occurs and in the case of binary systems, gravitational radiation -> internal energy due to missing higher order contributions of the metric.

3. Both the gravitational and electric potential of a single charged particle follows 1/r. I can arrive at this with a vacuum solution to my UFT and it is fully gauge invariant. My current problem is deriving higher order contributions to the macroscopic theory. My earlier references to Brans-Dicke however are worth studying, because they essentially introduce a long-range field; i.e. action at a distance due to localized entities rather than point-like sources (which was the basis of my "theory of everything").

"Both the gravitational and electric potential of a single charged particle follows 1/r. "

Yes but not the nuclear one.

This is also true. However, one must make a distinction between Lagrangian field energy and mass/momentum density, i.e. how does it actually contribute to curvature. For example, consider in electrodynamics the conservation law ∂vTuv+ηuafa=0. The electromagnetic stress-energy tensor is not the same as its mass/momentum variety, because it instead describes the action by it upon matter. For a charged non-composite particle the situation becomes simple as the far-field is 1/r. Composite particles such as neutrons are more complicated, because although the overall charge is 0, the underlying field energy still exists. For example, consider an electron and positron; I can slowly bring them together (prior to annihilation) so that their electric fields begin to cancel. However, the underlying energy (and thus metric curvature) due to their electric fields does not simply vanish. The situation is a little different and thus more appropriate for quarks, where instead of annihilating they form discrete particles (i.e. the test particle case where the field follows ηuv). My microscopic methods avoid this issue by simply applying a Lorentzian 1/r to all massive particles and then including free fields such as Ak separately. Then one just needs to make the transformation r -> r', where the metric relative to each particle is induced by all other particles/free fields under consideration.

"I can slowly bring them together (prior to annihilation) so that their electric fields begin to cancel. However, the underlying energy (and thus metric curvature) due to their electric fields does not simply vanish"..

I agree that their electric fields begin to cancel..

 it is interesting to imagine what happens to the metric after annihilation... only two photons emerge or something else has to be considered??

“Is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation used as an absolute reference frame...”,

- It seems evident, that on some local (nooot too local, though) level one can, in certain sense, use the CMB as some unique preferred “reference frame”; however, if more correctly,  that isn’t the reference frame – a reference frame is a system of synchronized, by concrete method, clocks and calibrated rules; which allow to an conscious observer to make kinematical (spacetime) measurements. There is nothing such things in the CMB, so the CMB is, in fact, some analogous of a static Aether, when every material body moves relating to the Aether. As well as there are no “space” or “time” in the reference frame instruments. Though one can make, of course, a reference frame that is static relating to the Aether.

“...the one that Newton was looking for? ”

- Newton was not looking for an absolute reference frame, since he agreed with the Galileo relativity principle. The last doesn’t include a limitations of any body speed in the Newtonian absolute space +absolute time; where the sense of the word “absolute” means that neither space nor time depend on any material body, reference frame and from each other; seems nothing more.

Thus in the Newtonian absolute space+time all [inertial, of course] reference frames are totally equivalent. And just after the Lorentz-Pythagoras transformations were discovered, where the clocks tick rate depends on the speed of clocks, it turned out, that there must exist preferred reference frames that are static in the absolute space in the 4D absolute spacetime

– since an attempt to clime that all reference frames are equivalent (what is postulated in the SR) immediately follows to logically nonsensical conclusions (the Dingle problem, etc. in the SR)

And, again, the detection of the “absolute motion”, i.e. – of the motion of a clocks relating to the absolute space, is rather simple problem, which can be rather easily solved now – see http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190

After 4pi measurements it is possible to measure the absolute vector spatial speed of the clocks (and, of course the 4D vector speed=c) and further easily calculate parameters of corresponding reference frame, where, for example, clocks’ tick rates are maximal; further – re-calculate measurements results that are obtained in a reference frame to the absolute frame values. It is not impossible, that the measured absolute speed will be near 600 km/s...

Cheers

"So what causes a "clock" to become a clock?"

- To understand “what is clock” is firstly necessary (i) – to understand – what is the time?, (ii) - what is material objects? And, further (iii) – how an material object can “measure the time”, i.e. – what is clock.

Questions (i) and (ii) are Meta-physical and so can be answered in the “Information as Absolute” conception only, the answers are rather complex; they exist now in other threads in the RG in SS answers and viXra links pointed there.

If very briefly; the “time” that “clocks show” - isn’t the time, this notion much more complex, including – in Matter two “times” act – “true time” and “coordinate time”; both are necessary for any change of some object state; both establish that any change must be accompanied by some “time interval”. And just the time interval in physics at measurements is called “time”, though that is in certain sense a jargon.

The true time’s intervals occur at any change of objects’ states – at internal state and at spatial position change (at motion). The coordinate time’s interval occurs if only internal state changes and this time’s interval is just what the clocks show.

Simultaneously the coordinate time is the possibility for every objects’ internal state to change and so is the t-coordinate in the really existed absolute 4D Euclidian spacetime.

Besides – after initial portion of energy that was obtained by Matter and because of the energy conversation law, all material objects constantly change, what realizes as that every material objects move in the spacetime; if an object is at rest in the space, it moves along t-axis only and has maximal  "speed in time".

Since Matter in depth is made from some stable identical elements and since all fundamental changes are seems very stable, all objects so move in the 4D spacetime with identical 4-speeds that are equal to the speed of light; every object in depth is a clock. That allow some people to make and to use clocks.

Again – more see, for example https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey_Shevchenko/answers in threads first of all relating to time or space; and the viXra links, for example –in the post here above.

Cheers

Dear Manuel,

It seems you didn’t read the links that were referenced in my posts above. And in the last post the answer on this your question exists already – Matter is a huge number of continuously changing logical structures, when any change is necessarily accompanied by two – of the true and of the coordinate times - intervals.

As that follows from humans’ experience, a vast majority of elementary particles and systems of the particles in Matter, except some exotic ones, are stable, from what (from the continuous changing and the stability) follows rather reasonable consequence that the particles are closed loop algorithms that cyclically change their states. Again, any particle and a stable system of particles is a clock; some people only fasten to some specific natural clocks some points and clock face.

Again – clocks measure their proper (relating to the spacetime/ "absolute reference frame") – i.e. coordinate – time intervals.

Though, besides, since usually it is unknown – what absolute speed of given clock in the spacetime, a human doesn’t know the “true clock tick rate” and can only compare relative time intervals at the practice.

The question – how the logical structure “Matter” appeared and how the Matter’s elements were forced to change (from where the initial portion of the energy appeared) remains, of course. But I by any means don’t lay up any claim on any the answer…

Cheers

At least a clock has to serve as a reference...

when I was young, I have wrote small essay about origin of definitions of time and space. I included this essay in my paper 0803.3276. I also advice to read books by Poincare. In general. Observation of repeated processes (sun rise and sun set, moon and sun tide, summer and winter) ultimately lead to concept of time. Similarly comparison what we see by our eyes or what we draw on paper and what happens when we make step or move our hand, study of object which moves away from us, ultimately lead us to concept of space. Space and time are math definitions and we learn them using geometry. But we can apply these definitions to study real physics and here become subject of physical experiment and have to comply with our observations. This is why at different time we used different language to explain what is time and what is space. Newton had deal with small distance and small speed. Euclid geometry was enough to describe space and time. They was separated and did not depend on observer motion. when speed become large, when we discovered speed of light, request to join space and time emerged. it was special relativity. the study of gravitational field in such frame showed that either we need to accept variable speed of light or accept that geometry is not Euclidian. Next problem rose from quantum mechanics because we do not have any analog of trajectory there. A lot of people work today to find out new geometry. Mainly there are two different concepts: string theory and loop gravity. Is this ultimate request to change our concept of space and time. I do not think so. But today we need to answer current questions. Our concept of space and time tells us how we can describe physics, physics tells us how should look concept and geometry of space and time. In other words. concept of space and time is language (or part of language) of physics 

Dear Valentin,

“with the mention that (in my view) time makes sense for an observer only when/if he compares his own clock to the clock of an observed change”

- That isn’t totally so, that is only one feature of the complex notion “time”, and only if one considers others features, this one can correctly use this notion, including – in the physics. First of all – the time is objective rule/possibility that implicitly (with necessarily the rule/possibility “space”) govern the existence and the evolution (changing of internal states and spatial positions) of material objects and Matter as a whole. The time and the space are absolute, act always objectively and exist(ed) always – including up to Beginning of Matter and Her evolution; they existed, of course, long before any observer and by no means depend on “sense for an observer only when/if he compares…” As well as they don’t depend on each other when constitute – as possibilities – 4D “spacetime container”.

In the fact that this container can be depicted by an observer with using Euclidian (moreover – “Cartesian”) geometry, there is no surprising – the mathematics is quite adequate and efficient tool for “decoding” connections in the totally true logical system “Matter”. But when an observer becomes to use the mathematics without caution, that leads sometimes to inadequacy, seems a classical example – rather strange the SR/GR postulates that real Matter’s spacetime is pseudoEuclidian/pseudo Riemannian.

Again - any material object is a clock, it is a cyclically changing internal state (and, sometime, spatial position) [logical in depth] structure. Any change is necessarily accompanied by both – by the true time and the coordinate time intervals; the clocks usually show a pile up of their internal states changes; and so – for observers – the pile up of “coordinate time intervals” – or their “proper times”. Usually clocks are made from T-particles, i.e. particles that have “rest mass”; if such a clock is at rest in the spacetime, it moves in coordinate time only and its tick rate is maximal. If it also move in the space, then, since every material object moves in the spacetime with constant speed [of light], it moves along t-axis slower and so its tick rate slows down; if, e.g., a clock is a T-particle muon, its internal processes slow down and moving muon lives longer.

Yea, if an observer don’t know his absolute spatial speed he can only compare by using his clock relative rates of processes of changing material objects; but that isn’t correct always. An example from the SR – if a famous twin-traveller launches a clock back relating to the ship’s motion direction, he will think that this clock’s tick rate is slower then the rate of his clock, but that is evidently incorrect, in the reality this clock’s tick rate is faster.

Again – the notions “space” and “time” are Meta-physical (and  Meta-[mainstream] philosophical, though) and cannot be properly defined in framework in the physics, “how we can describe physics, physics tells us how should look concept and geometry of space and time” – that is a chicken-and-egg situation. As a next example - in the SR there are two times also – “proper time” and “simply time [coordinate in the Minkovski space]”. Both relate in some features to the real true and coordinate times, but in rather strange manner.

Again – in principle it is possible to measure the absolute speed now, such a measurement would be made only once and further everybody could use this value if it’s necessary - http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190

Cheers

Dear Valentin,

It seems you didn’t read the paper “The Information as Absolute”, http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 - 33 pages-?

where it is simply but rigorously proven that all/every what exists is/are fundamentally some informational patterns/ structures/systems; which, in turn, are elements of utmost fundamental absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Matter in our Universe is only a sub-Set and so every material object is some info-pattern/ structure/system, where all/every physical interaction is, in depth, some logical transition. At that the information is some unity of possibility to exist of any number of elements (“the set is a mode of existence of information”) and a set of (seems mostly logical) rules – “Logos”

Logos contains the “Time” and the “Space” rules/ possibilities among others as ones that are utmost universal that act on whole Set, and further, of course – in the sub-Set “Matter”; that are, in fact, grammar rules/possibilities, which are necessary to build any informational structure and first of all – Space determines that any separate [always informational] elements must be separated by “space interval”; Time determines that any separate [always informational] states of a changing element must be separated by “time interval”.

Both rules by no means determine – what those interval must be, except that the intervals must be more then zero; but both rules act always and objectively, including – both intervals always objectively exist, i.e., accompany the existence and evolution of every system. The intervals in concrete systems are determined by concrete additional conditions/rules/”laws” that act in these systems; again - including. in Matter.

In Matter, again, two time rules act, at that all material objects – (see above) are in one “true time moment”, but, since some objects moves in the 3D space, because of constant their 4-speeds, are in different “coordinate time points”. Since every interaction between objects happens only in the space and in the true time – so practically in the space only – a human “doesn’t see the time”, when (s)he well “see the space” and so in practice there is no problem (if we don’t consider some exotic philosophical creations) with the awareness of the objectivity of the space and of the space intervals. But, again – there is no principal (in certain sense, see below and the link above) difference between spatial and temporal intervals, all 3 of them exist objectively.

Any clock doesn’t, of course know that it measures some time intervals, but the consciousness is capable (in principle, regrettably; some people aren’t, or make that in a strange manner) to understand – what the notions “Space” and “Time” mean; and to measure the intervals as some global parameters, which are very useful at analysis of material systems.

And( though the post is long already) since any continuous change – when in depth any change is continuous – is logically self-inconsistent (see Zeno), and so the Time rule is self-inconsistent, the Time rule/possibility principally differs from the Space one, which govern mainly by fixed information and so hasn’t logical problems. More here – see the link above, but for physics (and this post) now that isn’t too essential; it’s enough to understand that Matter has solved Zeno’s aporias by quantum uncertainty. But in the next physics this point may be rather possibly important...

Cheers

We so enjoy this conversation, that we forgot about one simple fact. Microvawe cosmic background is event which is different from bing bang. It happens much later when matter cooled down. It tells one time more that estimate of age of universe based on CMB depends on reference frame. Today we have only one reference frame linked with Earth. Speed of space ship is not big to make difference with this reference frame. But the time to see another reference frame is not far from today. Than it is mind to return to this question

The idea that Earth is moving at 370 km/s relative to the CMBR in the direction towards the Leo constellation is exciting... 

    Dear  Stefano,

    Do you know how this velocity is measured? I know that the Doppler effect is used but in what form?

Dear Daniel

I don't know I will ask to Yurij... I suspect though that  microwave antennas (Penzias and Wilson) pointed in different directions acquire different mean frequencies from these they determine the actual direction of motion, then the actual speed.

Stefano

A simple change in our (physicists) belief system, that is, to give up on the hypothetical fiction of a "big bang," with its something from nothing assumption leaves us with the clearly detectable background field of what we call the CMBR. Instead, if we accept that what we detect and label as the CMBR is simply the background EM field that pervades the cosmos, that is, the medium in and out of which our local universe arose and evolved to be the objective reality we are part of and perceive all about us. We do not now and may never know its source or origin, but its existence is confirmed powerfully as the medium which supports all EM radiation including light, and its structure is the only logical basis for "c," the universally recognized maximum velocity of that radiation. Extended and extensive without detectable boundaries, it is primal and the only plausible candidate for Einstein's fixed and preferred relativistic reference frame, not just a good approximation of one.

Big Bang, no; CMBR, yes. Where does the latter come from? 

At the moment, we don't know. Only that there is more than ample evidence that it exists here in and around us. So right now this theory has this one primal mystery, but the accepted set of :standard models" have an abundance of them, none of which has proven amenable to satisfactory resolution. I'm choosing to work with the simple set.

There has been a lot of talk about impossibility of an ether, obviously without knowledge about modern ether theory.  So, first of all, modern viable ether theory exist. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 defines an ether theory of gravity with GR limit, http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 a model which gives the standard model of particle physics, above published in peer-reviewed papers. 

Then, the CMB frame corresponds in this theory with the rest frame of the ether. The expansion of the universe is interpreted not as a real expansion, but as a shrinking of all rulers.  

The shrinking of rulers is the simple obverse of expansion of the universe, but require an acceptance of an unprovable phenomenon, the distortion of "space" which is not a thing but a conceptual idea. We learned the commutative property in 4th grade math. It is all based on the assumption of expansion, which might well be generated by the increased populations of stars as they arise in the field (ether) and push the older ones away. This is as justifiable as the standard models, but is probably too simple for acceptance. We seem trapped by what a writer in another forum called our adherence to "cherished ideas." Could we not be just misattributing our observations like "redshifts prove expansion" because to think otherwise might require abandonment of something else we cherish? At least one new thought keeps arising, the notion of a CMBR/ether identity. That can lead to a host of new concepts.

Thank you, Charles. If we can get across the idea that neither is time a thing, then a reinterpretation of GR is just around the corner. Einstein himself said that relativity requires something of substance (an ether, of some sort) but seemingly never got around to modifying his elegant masterpiece. And if that ether is what we've mistakenly called the CMBR, which is an energy field, of course, we've moved yet another step.I'm encouraged.

A background field, even at only 2.7 K, seems to me a prime candidate for the mystical "dark energy," and energy concentrations in it (it is certainly internally turbulent, I think, particularly in the regions near and around high energy concentrations like stars, galaxies, clusters) might then satisfy the search for "dark matter." So here is something substantive, that we have detected, that is pervasive, extensive, and has a verified existence. It is energetic and its structure could be seen as the basis for the limit of velocity of electromagnetic radiation, "c," just as the velocity of sound is determined by the structure of its medium. This is the more directly observable, "simple universe" model I've been pursuing, although until recently, I hadn't been aware of the work of Gustav Mie back in the early 1900's, who had some similar ideas but sought to verify them more in mathematics.

Dear all,

the Shakespearian discussion about aether and no aether, lasted for long. 

The attempt  of Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincarè, Langevin, Stokes and others to add a conventional medium in order to account for the behaviour of EM waves was not successful. Though the Lorentz transformations were originally derived in the presence of such a undefined propagation medium.

Trying to make such propagation medium too similar to the 3D known propagation media for acoustic interactions, costed the immediate disproof by the MM experiment and the subsequent interpretation by Einstein.

The experiment could not exclude that a propagation entity does not exist, it is a logical error to think about it. The MM experiment gave a disproof of something behaving like a convetional medium "Aether wind".

The presence of a propagation background with a finite impedance is still required by the Maxwell equations.

The need of a Background is postulated by Quantum electrodynamics to work. The CMBR is a fact too, used with the Doppler effect in order to determine absolute speed of celestial bodies.

The Hamilton Least Action Principle  again justifies the presence of an active background in which  dynamics have their origin by minimising the Action. The Noether theorems clearly states the property of the space and time as necessary.

The Higgs field is a omnipresent scalar field which is responsible of the mass/charge of the elementary particles.

These physical laws and entities are rooted in such a background. Even Einstein who  correctly wiped out, with the Special Relativity, the concept of the Aether wind, in favor to the absolute emtpiness where matter is absent , had to postulate something active with Grossman, a variable metric  in order to account for several effects of gravitation which later on were verified experimentally.

Charles, my ether theory of gravity defines a simple way to solve one of the problems of fundamental physics, namely the quantization of gravity.  Because we already know how to quantize condensed matter theories on a Newtonian background, to transform the theory of gravity into such a form defines also how to quantize it.  Then, it can be falsified - by observation of wormholes or causal loops which are allowed in GR. Then, my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 derives the SM from a quite simple model, thus, explains why the SM is what it is.  This is what other approaches to fundamental physics like string theory would be happy to be able to reach.  

Then, the explanation of the expansion of the universe by shrinking rulers would be possible in GR too, but, first, it would have no conceptual base (shrinking relative to what remains an open question) and, second, there would be no reason to prefer it in comparison with others, like an expansion with some center.  

Charles, the claim that my ether theory would fail to "recognise the fact of non-Euclidean geometry" is nonsense, the theory is a metric theory of gravity, and makes the same predictions for clocks and rulers as all metric theories of gravity. The metric is interpreted differently, as describing the distortions of clocks and rulers by the ether. Of course, distorted clocks and rulers define in general a non-Euclidean geometry, so, in this sense, it is recognized. Your claim would make sense only if "recognize" means some religious submission to the spacetime interpretation or so. 

Given my ether theory http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 we have a presentation of relativistic gravity in terms of a condensed matter theory on a Newtonian background, thus, your impossibility claim is rejected by an explicit counterexample. 

Then, don't forget that the idea that background-freedom is a fundamental insight of GR is not new at all.  And it has not lead to any quantum theory of gravity up to now, and will not, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 for a proof.  And a unification based on background freedom has not been found too.  

Charles, have you looked into the paper?  "No effect on physics" where it explains the SM, by deriving it from an extremely simple model?  

Which theory of quantum gravity do you have?  What string theory gives is a theory with a background - even if this background has a wrong dimension, which slightly complicates the picture, but this does not invalidate the point made in http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 against a background-free QG.  LQG?  Not really a finished theory.  

Charles, repetition is not an argument.  

Fine, a nice idea, sounds like somthing along the lines of Zakharov,  Whatever, I doubt that you will find a way around http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 and the graphs are only an illustration for a particular formula which, given that it is based on MInkowski space physics, uses a background.  

And, anyway, this has not even a chance to explain why the SM contains the fields it contains, which ether theory is able to do, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591

Charles, ok, that's enough, EOD. 

Ciao Stefano,

The problem of CMB as an absolute reference is fully solved in our work ( on this site)

"CMB -A Geometric Lorentz Invariant Model in Non Expanding Lobachevskian Universe, with a Black Body  Spectral Distribution Function"

Just for here, I say that in Lobaczhevskian Universe CMB arises in natural way and it is identified with the BOUNDARY AT INFINITY.  Thus as a reference at infinity it is a "stable" reference or absolute reference.

This situation is somehow similiar to a fixed star reference  which are so far that our instruments can not detect any "relative" motion.In our work there is a lot  figures which help you understand the problem.

And do not believe in a BS like Minkowski space time . Introducing space time, Minkowski and Einstein did more harm than good to physics.

Regards, Jerry

.

Caro

collega, ti scrivo in italiano perchè il mio inglese è relativamente arrugginito.

In primo luogo mi presento sono un collega, mi occupo nella vita di Ingegneria Idraulica ed Ingegneria Ambientale, la fisica è "solo" una passione.

Sono mesi che cerco in rete qualcuno, che, come me abbia notata l'intrinseca possibilità della CBR di costituire un riferimento del tutto privilegiato (indipendentemente da quale sia la sua origine, i miei studi ad esempio mi hanno convinto della totale infondatezza sia della Relatività sia del BigBang - in merito posso fornirti autorevoli ed illuminanti pubblicazioni).

Le asimmetrie di dipolo rilevate per la CBR evidenziano in maniera incontestabile che siamo in grado di valutare il nostro movimento relativo rispetto alla CBR, quanto meno per quanto riguarda direzione e verso, sarà poi possibile definire anche il modulo di questa velocità quando avremo una maggiore comprensione della CBR (quando ne comprenderemo la vera natura).

Pertanto la "nostra" osservazione in merito all'esistenza di un sistema privilegiato di riferimento mi sembra quanto mai lecita, tuttavia nel mondo accademico non mi sembra che tale osservazione sia mai stata sollevata. Anche se l'intera cosmologia e la fisica relativistica si basano sulla non esistenza di un sistema privilegiato e sull'impossibilità di discernere con esperimenti locali lo stato di moto di un sistema inerziale (il "gran naviglio" di Galileo). Tuttavia la CBR come sistema di riferimento ha entrambe queste proprietà e quindi gran parte degli ultimi 100 anni di fisica e cosmologia potrebbero essere un gigante con i piedi di argilla.

Sfortunatamente oltre a condividere la tua osservazione, non sono in grado di aggiungere elementi utili nello specifico, sfortunatamente io, per approfondire la questione, ho trovato solo materiale che inquadra i dati nell'ambito delle teorie correnti, e che pertanto non possono essere di aiuto a chi come noi parte da presupposti diversi.

Dear Claudio,

I write in English the way everybody in the thread can follow.

As you can see along the thread there are some Physicists who are currently using the CMBR as a mean to determine the speed of Planet.  The idea that Earth is moving at 370 km/s relative to the CMBR in the direction towards the Leo constellation is exciting...

Dear Stefano

Use CMBR to evaluate earh moving towards the "special frame" is really exciting!!!

But what s the CMBR? My studies about the work of Halton Arp, Franco Selleri, Rocco Vittorio Macrì, lead me to think that the Big Bang and Relativity have great epistemologic problem, so CBR must have another origin.

What is this origin??

Dear Claudio and others,

The following paper (link) may be relevant.  Sidharth and Valluri, "Cosmic Background Radiation", Int J. Theor. Physics, 2015.

Article Cosmic Background Radiation

Caro Claudio,

The answer to your question about origin and properties of  CMB is in the paper ( on this site) " CMB- A Geometric, Lorentz Invariant Model in Non -Expanding Lobachevskian  Universe with a Black Body Spectral  Distribution Function"

 Thanks to all!

I have many things to study now!

 Is there a peer reviewed publication seriously discussing CBR as absoulte frame of reference. I see it in discussion and various oline papers, but I wonder if the problem has proliferated to the mainstream pubs.

So called pier reviewed journals on the subject are dominated by Big Bang charlatans and no other point of view on CMB  will be in those journals presented. . Mathematical theory of CMB is in our paper on this site. Try it.

Andrew Wutke, GR does not accept any absolute frames of reference out of principle, so a paper who interprets it in such a way has to be one which proposes or discusses an alternative theory of gravity.  This is seldom done in mainstream physics. But there are examples.  There is, in particular, my own paper 

I. Schmelzer, A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035. 

This is an ether theory of gravity, but it gives the Einstein equations of GR in some quite natural limit, so that all the observational support for GR is not a problem at all.  See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity for more about this. 

In this theory, the CMBR frame would be the absolute Newtonian frame. (Some minor local modifications related with the non-homogeneity are in principle possible.) 

Thanks for the answers. This is sad mainstream journals do not accept controversial subjects. I think Dingle was extremely lucky back then. I do not make any representation here whether he was right o wrong but he definitely was given the benefit of doubt.