[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:10:55 +0100
On 30 Jul, Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Griffin,
> Hello, how are you? The diurnal rotation of the starry heavens is
> actually completely compatible with Einstein's special theory of
> relativity. This is because special relativity only deals with motion in
> a straight line, and does not prohibit the speed of light whenever
> rotational motion is concerned.
Sorry. That won't wash. If a mass approaches the speed of light,
its mass increases, and becomes infinite at the speed of light. Hence
nothing can travel faster than light. Also, if the stars' masses were
infinite it would need an infinite centripetal force to keep them in
orbit. I notice you don't give any information as to the source of the
centripetal forces which hold the stars in their orbits. It can't be
gravitational as the forces would not be big enough. If there is a source
of these incredibly larg forces, which an't we measure them in experiments
on the earth?
The theory is unbelivable and untenable.
> Further, in general relativity no restriction exists, which some argue
> is a contradiction between the two theories.
> I would like to ask you a question using the same token that you have
> provided, and ask how do supposedly extremely distant objects such as
> quasars appear to be moving faster than the speed of light due to there
> particular redshifts?
That's easy. They don't!
> In response to your question concerning Newton, the simplest answer to
> this that I can give you at present is that the universe is nowhere as
> big as we are told that it is.
Can you suggest where the astronomers have gone wrong? It's not a
simple answer. It's a totally unsupported supposition. Prove it!
Alan Griffin
Other related posts:
