[geocentrism] Last call
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:26:35 -0400
Gary,
Since the GC forum is shutting down and you are the unofficial chief
inquisitor, I have wrapped up my remaining comments about several postings
into one response.
>
> Whether you believe relativity or not is beside the point. The theory
> is internally consistent and agrees with observation so their are no
> paradoxes.
>
consistency ?
1. Distance through Space is determined by NOTHING (Aristotle's
objection....still valid)
2. Electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported by NOTHING.
3. The speed of light is determined by NOTHING.
4. The principle of vector addition for velocities is denied.
5. Twin paradox: A is older and younger than B. Denies the trichotomy
theorem of inequalities
6. Space has two geometries, one for matter, the other for photons.
7. Space is curved near large objects(GR) but empty everywhere(SR).
agrees with observation ?
So do many variants of aether theory and Galilean relativity.
> The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's relativity is a
true contradiction.
.....
> There are several ways to reolve the twin paradox (all essentially the
> same though) but it requires an understanding of the maths if you want
> to be absolutely sure there is no paradox. The simple answer is that
> one of the twins turns around and thus feels accelaration while the
> other doesn't. This is where the symmetry (and supposed paradox)
> is broken.
>
There is no symmetry breaking - this argument was abandoned long ago.
Let two space travelers depart in opposite directions from earth with
identical histories of motion for speed, acceleration and deceleration.
Their trips will be symmetric in Minkowski space, since their world lines
will be mirror images of each other within the light cone that has Earth as
the origin, at t =0.
Yet the contradiction remains, with perfect trip symmetry.......
A returns older than B and A returns younger than B
I notice that Worzel raised this symmetry issue on BA, and their response
was to rattle off the postulates of relativity. Ignoratio elenchi. "You
can run, but you can not hide...."
I'm abashed that some GC believers are non-Machian.
How do you explain Gen 1:14-19 and the Foucault pendulum, the [alleged]
equatorial bulge, the reduction in g acceleration at the equator, etc. ? And
all the other rotational motion 'disproofs' that the HC/AC folks cite?
Consider a humble washing machine, with a center agitator(rotor) and the
laundry container(tub).
Whether the rotor spins and tub is stationary, or vice versa, the laundry
always is thrown away from the center ==> centrifugal inertial forces depend
only on relative rotational motion.
In the universe, opposed to the expansion forces of Mach are the gravity
forces, which can be simulated by tilting the tub vertically (a front end
loader in the colonies). Only the top of the tub demos the universe, because
only there is the laundry's weight pointing in toward the agitator. For a GC
simulation, the tub and water(firmament)is spinning and the rotor(Earth)is
not. When the tub slows down the laundry separates from the top of the tub
and describes an arc between tub and rotor. This shows an orbit is produced
when gravity balances Machian forces.
You might say - it all comes out in the wash.........
We abstract from the washing machine and observation of the heavens three
principles of the firmamental rotation.
1> the inertial acceleration is dependent on relative motion only.
2> the inertial acceleration is always radial outward.
3> the inertial acceleration increases with distance from earth.
Using Revelation and objective scrutiny of modern science facts (not their
mod sci interpretation/spin) this list can and should be extended.
>>>However, the "twins paradox" is a contradiction within Special
Relativity. Special Relativity does not >>>deal with acceleration, which is
handled by General Relativity. SR and GR are incompatible.
A minor point. SR can and does deal with acceleration by using calculus to
create a sequence of infinitesimal inertial frames that allow the direct
calculation of the twin's acceleration. If accelerations were out of the SR
scope, how would Newton's 2nd law be tested in SR?
Pax Christi,
Robert
PS: Do you know of any other GC fora?
Other related posts:
