[geocentrism] Re: Last call
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:32:56 -0400
Dear Mike,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:44 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Last call
>
>
> 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.
RB: How do you extend a meter stick through NOTHING? Nothing is the absence
of existence - nihil, non-being, non esse - not the physical vacuum, not
empty space .... not anything, just NOTHING. Don't try to picture nothing,
because the sense faculties can only perceive reality, and NOTHING has no
reality. Don't try to use a beam from a laser gauge to measure distance in
it, because if light (or any matter) were present inside nothing, it
couldn't be nothing.
So Shakespeare was right; It's possible to have "Much ado about nothing".
>
> > 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.
The luminiferous aether is that substrate of space which supports static and
varying E and B varying potentials - EM waves
SR says these EM waves are not supported by anything.
So, SR says that electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported by
NOTHING
>
> > 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?
1) 1960s speed of light forever constant contradicts genesis , each year
we drift further from the true divinely ordained
>
> > 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:
