[geocentrism] Re: Relativity
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:04:40 -0500
Neville -- Are you saying that there is any reason to think that what we
would expect to see from the moon as it pertains to the earth turning is
relative? Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Relativity
> Such is the worldwide admiration for Einstein (i.e., one stone) that
everything is conveniently described as being "relative."
>
> There is a difference, however, between Einstein's special theory of
relativity and the concept of relative motion as it applies to our everyday
experience.
>
> This relative motion business can be grasped without any of the
mathematical manipulations that would be necessary with Einstein's theory.
>
> (By the way, Einstein's SR was proven wrong by many physicists, most
noteably Dingle, Poor and Ives.)
>
> Neville.
>
> "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I meant to respond to Philip, not Dan, on the relativity thing. As I said
> to Dan, there is a site that shows what we would see if we were on the
moon,
> far out in space looking down on the earth as it revolved around the
earth,
> etcetera.
>
> There is an expectation of what you would see from the moon based on what
> Copernicus said. So if the astronauts got to the moon and did not see the
> earth budging one single inch, well then?
>
> And would they not be in a position to say yes or no? Based on the theory,
> they could verify if that theory was correct or not. They would be
standing
> on the moon and should see the earth going through phases and see the
earth
> turning completely every 24 hours -- relativity or no relativity.
>
> Yes?
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
Other related posts:
