[geocentrism] Re: Last call
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:33:21 +0100
Gary L. Shelton wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Mike, I have just one question. An obvious one, but nevertheless...
> How come we don't feel dizzy due to the spinning of the earth?
Because it doesn't spin very fast, like, about once a day :) The
rotation can be felt by sensitive enough equipment however. Other than
denial of obsevational evidence the only explanation I can see for
geocentrics is the intertial restistance to the mass of the universe and
the only coherent theory I have seen that foots the bill is general
relativity.
>>> The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
>> Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's
>> relativity is a true contradiction.
>
> Absolutely the best line I've heard in awhile.... Gotta like it, yes.
Yes, very witty, but as Voltaire said "a witty saying proves nothing".
Semantics doesn't alter the fact that SR and GR are not inconsistent,
internally, with each other, or with observation.
>> 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
>
> Thanks very much for this example, Robert.
Sorry, but this is not an example of the twin paradox.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
