[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:53:41 +1000
G'day Martin. good to have your input. Paul, if you want some info where your
peer group gives support to the probability of my aether, this might be worth a
read.
I am not sure we can accept as gospel "The Lense-Thirring Effect does in fact
predict rotational inertial dragging of frames in the vicinity of a rotating
body, and it is an effect that has been experimentally confirmed. " In fact
most of the selected paragraphs I offer below from Wikipaedia, (admittedly not
gospel) merely add more confusion as to what is reality and what is
imagination./
Take this ,
"The main consequence of the gravitomagnetic force, or acceleration, is that a
free-falling object near a massive rotating object will itself rotate. This
prediction, often loosely referred to as a gravitomagnetic effect, is among the
last basic predictions of general relativity yet to be directly tested. "
You will notice in the selections below that the term "gravitomagnetism" is an
analogous term, coined no doubt to infer there is a gravitational field similar
as in a magnetic field, but not proven. Yet everything becomes "out of this
world" when space time is invoked. Reading between the lines, it is inferred
that the DRAG IS NOT due to NEWTONIAN INERTIA but time shifting (time travel)
Even though I would like to believe in it, and it is certainly possible, this
does not make it true. But Scripture certainly makes it probable...
From Wiki, Lense-Thirring effect
"Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies
drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging.
The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of
general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans
Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1][2][3] More
generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as
gravitomagnetism.
Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space
and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions
of Newtonian physics. This is the frame-dragging effect. The predicted effect
is incredibly small - about one part in a few trillion - which means that you
have to look at something very massive, or build an instrument that is
incredibly sensitive.
The frame dragging predictions of general relativity have been confirmed to a
20% accuracy using the LAGEOS sattellites.[citation needed] The Gravity Probe B
experiment is currently under way to experimentally measure the amount of
frame-dragging to a much greater accuracy." end quote.
I am talking here with HC or GC in mind. Meaning it does not influence my
reasoning even if it does change values/quantities , which for this discussion
is irrelevant
Now there is much to be controversial in the above quote, all being
theoretical. Do we accept Einsteins General relativity? dragging space time? or
gravitomagnetism?
Might not the miniscule forces measured be caused by some other aberation in
gravity, similar in effect to tides, which also give the illusion of being
dragged by the moon, whereas they are not dragged. Tidal currents, as such,
flow from both east and west.
Definitions follow:
spacetime
In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines space and time into
a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime is usually
interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the
fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has
three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and
time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a good
deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the
workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
(Now that, if even close to true, supports what I have said about the aether
being an effect of the fourth dimension.)
Two-dimensional analogy of space-time distortion. The presence of matter
changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as
gravity. Note that the white lines do not represent the curvature of space, but
instead represent the coordinate system imposed on the curved spacetime which
would be rectilinear in a flat spacetime
General relativity (GR) [also called the general theory of relativity (GTR) and
general relativity theory (GRT)] is the geometrical theory of gravitation
published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16.[1][2] It unifies special relativity
and Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation with the insight that
gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space
and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum
content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other
metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to
relate space-time content and space-time curvature.
General relativity is currently the most successful gravitational theory, being
almost universally accepted and well supported by observations. The first
success of general relativity was in explaining the anomalous perihelion
precession of Mercury.
Didn't someone on this list show that this last re Mercury was pure luck, that
the theory failed in many other similar instances tested. In other words a
direct act of deceit. So much for honesty in science
Gravitomagnetism (sometimes Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM), refers
to a set of formal analogies between Maxwell's field equations and an
approximation to the Einstein field equations for general relativity, valid
under certain conditions. For instance, the most common version of GEM is valid
only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles
This approximate reformulation of gravitation as described by general
relativity makes a "fictitious force" appear in a frame of reference different
from a moving, gravitating body. By analogy with electromagnetism, this
fictitious force is called the gravitomagnetic force, since it arises in the
same way that a moving electric charge creates a magnetic field, the analogous
"fictitious force" in special relativity. The main consequence of the
gravitomagnetic force, or acceleration, is that a free-falling object near a
massive rotating object will itself rotate. This prediction, often loosely
referred to as a gravitomagnetic effect, is among the last basic predictions of
general relativity yet to be directly tested. A group at Stanford University is
currently analyzing data from the first direct test of GEM, the Gravity B
satellite experiment. Frame-dragging is often mentioned as a gravitomagnetic
effect, but the Lense-Thirring effect (precession) may be a more appropriate
example.
A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force[1], is an apparent force that
acts on all masses in a non-inertial frame of reference, e.g., a rotating
reference frame. The force F does not arise from any physical interaction, but
rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself. Due
to Newton's second law F = ma, fictitious forces are always proportional to the
mass m being acted upon.
Look a force is a force if it is apparent, meaning observed.. Why call it
ficticious?? Mama Mia... Oh I get it .. Its a mamathmatical force .. An
extra thrown in to balance the equation... I like it..
Philip
Philipm
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin G. Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:45 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
On Mar 21, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Paul Deema wrote to Robert Bennett:
I guess your weakness in physics shows up here again, the Earth's
acceleration (revolution) does not influence the period of its satellites
either.
That, Paul, is what's known as an "oops" on your part. The Lense-Thirring
Effect does in fact predict rotational inertial dragging of frames in the
vicinity of a rotating body, and it is an effect that has been experimentally
confirmed. While the amount is infinitesimal for a mass as small as the Earth
(assuming it to be rotating, which I disavow), it is nonetheless non-zero. A
rotating body DOES have a mechanical influence on the periods of objects around
them -- it's generally too tiny to detect.
So, while you might be correct on raw Newtonian grounds, in the absolute
empirical scheme of things the only thing exposed by your post is your own
weakness in physics. True, the magnitudes of the Lense-Thirring Effect likely
don't affect your primary argument, BUT your blanket statement goes too far in
asserting zero influence.
Don't think to say that Newton "is good enough." Long's 1970 determination of
G using a Cavendish torsion balance, set up with precision elemental rings,
showed deviations in the value of G (based on Newtonian theory) of 0.37%. That
means Newton is off by a whoping 1 part in 300, and this error was readily
detectible in an earth-bound laboratory. Einsteinian theory can't explain that
anomaly either, so GR is likewise an unreliable codification of gravitation.
That said, I'm still interested in hearing from Robert as to what HE meant by
his comment (perhaps it had something to do with accounting for elliptical
orbits, which would entail accelerations/decelerations if they were assumed to
be circular, or he sees something else entirely that needs to be factored in...)
Regards,
Martin
---------
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax
(512) 422-4919 cell
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007
7:52 AM
Other related posts:
