>we seek in vain for a reason why one should be preferredYeah because in 1914 you did not know about CMB which is the preferred frame in cosmology.>we FEEL forced to postulate they are equivalentOh you FEEL? Really? FEELS? Based on outdated facts. Thats what modern physics is based on btw, while attacking everyone arguing in a way better metaphysical waySource: Mach's principle : from Newton's bucket to quantum gravity and it was from a 1914 einstein paper
>>17055721>CMB is preferredmore like privileged, but yeah
>>17055721the universe is a mathematical construct why shouldn't it follow the same principles
>>17055721You don't understand what a preferred reference frame means. It's a preferred reference frame for the laws of physics themselves e.g. Maxwell's Equations. There is no need for such a thing. You don't need to know your velocity relative to the CMB in order to use Maxwell's Equations properly. The existence of particular reference frames like the "CMB reference frame" does not make them preferred reference frames for the laws of physics.
>>17055748I take my hat off to your patience.
>>17055748Red and blue shift of the CMB is not a law of physics? Hu? And yeah some laws work for every frame like maxwell equations, but that is because of the lorentz transformation. You cant just bring up one law that works in every frame and ignore others that only work in the privileged frame.
>>17055748>The existence of particular reference frames like the "CMB reference frame" does not make them preferred reference frames for the laws of physics.Also this is a strawman anyway, einstein claimed "there is no sufficient reason to see something as a reference system at all", not just "prefered frame where the laws of physics is different"CLEARLY the CMB is a "reference system for the formulation of" cosmic expansion in modern cosmology.This is already Q.E.D. that einsteins metaphysical assumptions are long long outdated.
>>17055830>Red and blue shift of the CMB is not a law of physics?Red and blue shifts are the effects of physical laws under particular conditions. The CMB is not a law any more than my dick is a law of physics. It is a consequence of physics, a physical object, not a law. It is simply radiation. Just like the CMB, Maxwell's equations are not affected by the current velocity of my green frog cock. Capisci?
>>17055842As i said it doesnt matter (you can see it that way or define the redshift as change), this is all a strawmen, einstein made a FAR stronger claim which you ignored >>17055833His claim was "we cant find a sufficient reason why we should use a frame as REFERENCE system, not preferred. And since cosmology uses CMB as REFERENCE frame, its over for relativists.
>>17055844>since cosmology uses CMB as REFERENCE framedo you understand what reference frame means? Do you understand that the reference frame being a common standard does not imply that it has explanatory power? For example, what changes when you switch to Anon's green frog dick reference frame, doyou obtain different results?
>>17055873>the reference frame being a common standard does not imply that it has explanatory powerThen frame your theory without this explanatorily-worthless fictional entity. :^)
>>17055875"Manifolds can be expressed coordinate independently" is kinda the first thing I would have expected you to have learned from the introductory topology lessons that that GR prerequisites. Coordinate frames are locally emergent, and I do not recall that sufficiently shitty GR solutions have a reason to have a single reference frame that can reach every point in space.
>>17055873>For example, what changes when you switch to Anon's green frog dick reference frame, do>you obtain different results?Yes, the expansion of the universe and the cosmic redshift would be highly anisotropic. But again, thats not even what einstein suggested, einstein made a way harder claim.
