[geocentrism] Michelson-Morley/Twins Paradox
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:18:19 -0500
Group,
This is is a brief reply from a fellow on the BA board (coincidentally named
Lorentz, BTW) stepping in to respond to words I wrote to another BA-er named
Worzel. Worzel had originally asked me what I thought of Einstein, I believe,
and I responded. Two subjects came up. Michelson-Morley, and the Twins
Paradox. Someone else reported (not repeated here) on BA during the course of
this conversation that I was wrong about the purpose of MM. They said it was
to measure the movement of the earth through the aether. I felt that that was
simply linear orbital speed of the earth around the sun, and that any measure
of that was, by corollary, a proof that the earth rotated. There was some
disagreement with that summation, and it was a minor point of contention on the
board as I recall. But I still hold to that understanding. What else was MM
trying to do if not prove the earth moved through space? Wouldn't moving
through aether mean the same thing? Wouldn't proof of it mean proof of
rotation, ergo?
It was a bit off topic for the thread there, but that's what happens sometimes.
I thought it might be of interest.
In geostasis,
Gary
------------------------------------
Gary wrote: Worzel, my off the cuff feelings about Einstein and all this
relativity stuff he is credited for, is that it did loads of good to offset the
actual scientific results of the Michelson Morley experiments. Those gents were
out to prove the earth moved through space, and thereby rotated, and came up
with zip movement.
Lorentz replied: That wasn't the only reason. Without Einteinian-Lorentzian
type relativity, the laws of electrodynamics as described by Maxwell
contradicts the laws of mechanics as described by Newton. What got Einstein
going was mainly questions about radiation pressure (part of electrodynamics),
which when examined superficially seem to be nonNewtonian. The earth not moving
was not really an issue in Einstein's head, maybe in Lorentz's.
Gary wrote: For over 20 years these experiments were replicated all over the
world. Same result. Earth is still in the heaven. But then Einstein was
promoted up as a science superstar with ideas from Poincare, Lorentz, and
others and he saved the day.
Lorentz replied: Gary, did you know Poinare and Lorentz both new about
Einstein's theory, both supported him, and both refused to take credit from
him. In fact, it was Lorentz who first called Einstein a genius and is to a
large part responsible for Einstein's diefication. Did you ever read any of
Lorentz's or Einstein's papers? I did. Lorentz explains Einstein's theory, and
how it was better than his, in great detail. I personally think Lorentz
explains Einstein better than Einstein explains Einstein. Read "Theory of the
Electrons."
Gary wrote: Let me ask you [talking to Worzel. GLS] the one question I can
about Einstein. What is the resolution to famous Twin's Paradox?
Lorentz replied: Resolution: A force is acting on the twin in the spaceship,
no force is acting on the twin on earth. From the spaceship twin's point of
view, a foce is acting on him that violates Newton's third law. The
pseudo-gravity that spaceship twin fells has no opposing force, no
action-reaction. Earth twin can assign a body with a reaction force for every
body with an action force.
In special relativity, an inertial frame is one where both the laws of
mechanics and the laws of electrodynamics hold true (Einstein's 1905 paper).
GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
