[geocentrism] Re: For Alan
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:20:54 +1000
\Alan said in reference to a cameraman set away from our solar system:
"The video would show definitely whether the earth went round the
sun, or the sun went round the earth ."
To which I reply with some trepidation.
No it would not. This alien has no way of knowing if he is rotating or
moving in ANY direction. Thus if he makes himself stationary relative to the
sun, then he would see what the sun sees. A rotating earth. He would see
this because he and the sun are locked together relative to each other and
both THINK they are stationary even if they are not.
Now if he were to make himself stationary relative to the earth, then
assuming Hoyles universe, (can't spell copernicus) he will with his camera
be rotating with the earth. So he will see what the earth sees. A sun
revolving around the earth. He won't know if he and the earth are stationary
or rotating together.
Assume he is this light year above the plane of the
solar system, looking down at the axis of N pole and the sun . HIS CAMERA
WILL ROTATE in synchronism with the earth, causing the image of the sun to
appear to rotate around the earth. The image would be exactly the same if he
were really stationary and the sun moved the circle. Try it graphically. No
big deal. No need to get a light year away.Draw four square frames. mark one
side T for top of frame. place a small circular earth in the centre, with an
arrow across the diameter ponting at T looking at Alaska we might say. You
the observer have locked yourself and camera with Alaska on the T of frame.
remember. Its midday at Alaska so put the sun circle just under T at the
top
of the frame.We can make four frames with the T shifting 90 degrees for each
one put the sun over the correct quadrant of each midday.
Then take the four frames and arrange them in correct sequence with the T
uppermost. You will find a perfect time lapse of 24 hours with the sun
revolving aroun the earth, yet it is a sequence you got as though you and
the earth rotated together.
Do the exact same thing with the camera locked stationary on the sun.
What you are trying to do out there is to have the alien in a reference
point
that is at a perfect state of rest, revolving with nothing, either the sun
or the earth or the galaxy for that matter. And that as I said in the
beginning, is impossible and which Fowler said in the quote you snipped and
disallowed.
Nevertheless I thank you for stimulating my thought processes. As you may
be aware the human brain is not equal in the different attributes accorded
people.
Some have great graphic visualisations, another some great musical skills,
or
computation mathmatics. I have none of these. The graphical centres of my
brain are
dead. I have to draw and even do my equations on paper. Well not ohms law.
But pie r squared root elsie, yes need the paper and pen. Even the
calculator
is of no use.
But I feel that these deficiencies are compensated for by my ability to
reason, that
it is better to understand as much as possible about as many subjects as
possible
being perfect in none, and the acceptance that I must always be ready to
learn
something new. A jack of all trades but master of none is better than being
a master of
one. Don't you agree.We need the masters, but I'd hate to be one. A drone in
the
beehive.
So be not discouraged Alan by me or anyone. You and I have a soul which
before God is equal to the best, till we self destruct it.
Philip. I'm a stirrer too. Is that what they mean by tone? I thought they
was referring to music LOL
I've livened up a few Catholic lists, and been kicked out of all of them, or
at least had to run away.
This is my first venture into among my scientific superiors. So far So good.
I admire Neville for his humility. I wish I could understand or do his math.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Griffin" <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: For Alan
On 04 Aug, Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reply-To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I don't know if it would have made in difference Alan if instead of
> Immobility with respect to space, I had used the term fixed frame of
> reference, or if you yet know from my subsequent humble attempt to clear
> it up, so I quote here the short statement by Michael Fowler which is
> trying to say the self same thing, in his lecture on Special Relativity
> You had your alien in a couple of frames of reference which were not
> proven to be immoble
You're awfully good at quoting other people, but it's irrelevant
to my argument, which I thought I had made really simple for non-
scientists!
So I've snipped the quotations!
The alien sets himself up a light-year away from the sun. He
measures the velocity of the sun relative to himself (which according to
me would not change. According you it would, so he would find something
else i.e. the earth which gave him a constant velocity.
He would then fire his rockets to match the speed of the sun (or
the earth) and then switch off, so there were no forces on him. He checks
that the speed of the sun (or the earth in your case) is zero with respect
to him. He is now at rest compared to the sun (or the earth), so he gets
out his time-lapse video camera and videos the solar system for some time.
(One earth-year would be enough for our purpose).
The video would show definitely whether the earth went round the
sun, or the sun went round the earth.
Now that is explained in very simple language, that everyone
should be able to understand, and it hasn't mentioned "frames of
reference" or anything difficult.
The problem is that people who are not scientists try to "blind
non scientists with pseudo science"!
Alan Griffin
Other related posts:
