[geocentrism] Re: Last call
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:43:52 +0100
Dear Robert,
>>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)
Distance is perfectly well defined for a given frame of reference, one
meter is how far a one meter rule extends when stationary in that frame.
The transformation of distance from one frame to another is also
pertectly well defined.
> 2. Electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported by NOTHING.
Do you mean because there's no aether? I fail to see what part of
relativity this contradicts.
> 3. The speed of light is determined by NOTHING.
I thought the speed of light was about 299,792,458 m/s in every inertial
(or locally inertial) frame of reference as determined by
experimentation. Where's the contradiction?
> 4. The principle of vector addition for velocities is denied.
Do you mean because normal vector addition is just an approximation that
gets more out the bigger the velocities? Again, where's the contradiction?
> 5. Twin paradox: A is older and younger than B. Denies the trichotomy
> theorem of inequalities
Fancy sounding way of saying you don't understand the twin paradox. The
one that turns around is younger, where's the contradiction?
> 6. Space has two geometries, one for matter, the other for photons.
Do you mean that they are different frames of reference?
> 7. Space is curved near large objects(GR) but empty everywhere(SR).
Are you saying that there needs to be stuff in space for there to be
curvature? Are you happy with the idea of a straight line in a vacuum?
> agrees with observation ?
> So do many variants of aether theory and Galilean relativity.
Can you name one observation of the aether other than the
Michel-Morleyson experiment and one alternative theory to relativity
that equally agrees with observation.
>>The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
>
> Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's relativity is a
> true contradiction.
Well, I agree that paradox is more usually used to to mean something
that is an apparent contradiction despite it not being so, but then they
are paradoxes after all :) But more importantly, where are the
contradictions in relavity?
>>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.
Really? By whom? Can you back that up?
> 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
No, if they experience identical forces they will age the same amount.
I think (but check this out on BA, I'm just figuring it out in my head
as I type) that while they are moving away from each other they will
both see each other's clcck run slow, then when they both turn around
they will both see each other's clock leap forward ahead of their own
(or go very quickly while they turn around if you like) then while
they're approaching each other they will see (or rather deduce, I'm
ignoring doppler effects) each other's clock run slow again until they
come back into agrement when they meet :)
> 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...."
You didn't look very hard then, I have had some excellent answers on
there that have really helped me. Because some of them *do* understand
it rather than just know how to rattle off the postulates and theorems
they can see where one's misconceptions are coming from - books can
never do that. Care to give a link to the post you're talking about?
> 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.
Well that's just not true is it. If you postulate that inertia comes
from resistance to movement against the mass of the universe then that
is one thing. But I can certainly tell whether it is me, or the view
out of my window which is spinning because I either feel dizzy or I don't.
> 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.
I've never heard of the expansion forces of Mach. Is this the 5th
fundimental force? You talk about it alongside gravity as if the two
are equally well established and understood.
> 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.
Ok, I think I see what you're saying now. Does this explain why
geostationary satallites don't fall from the sky? If so, why does the
moon not fly away seeing as how its further away?
>>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?
Indeed. Quite a major point really, because the SR derived equations
then become identical to a GR pseudo gravity well. I think this may
have led Einstein to the equivalence principle.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
