[geocentrism] Re: Fwd: Fw: Re: Fwd: Relativity
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:28:23 +0100
Hi Jack,
> From: "Jack Lewis"
>>Thanks Gary, it is as I suspected, nonsensical. What I cannot grasp is how
>>people can believe it, because it is irrational even though Einstein was
>>behind it. I would be interested in what BA have to say.
>>
>>Jack
I can comletely understand your sentiments, relativity is very counter
intuitive. That does not mean, however, that it is irrational or
nonsense, it is just that the universe doesn't behave as our intuition
would tell us it should.
I stuggled to get my head around it for years before taking the plunge
and actually learning the maths (still in progress, I still have a long
way to go before I could claim to understand GR).
The reason why poeple believe* it is because there are anomalies to
Newtonian physics that don't exist in GR. Also, many experiments to
test GRs predictions have been performed and they invariably support GR.
Please don't accept the nonsense expressed by some that SR and GR are
incompatible, contradictory, etc. This just is not true and the clocks
supposedly running faster and slower than each other at the same time is
a classic attempt to picture SR in aboslute space and time (which are
difficult intuitive notions to let go of).
If you really would be interested in what BA has to say then why not
just go there and search for threads on relativity, or "twin paradox",
there are loads. You only have to register if you then want to ask
questions. Remember, though, that BA, like any forum, is not a
homogenous group of people, not everything everyone says there is
necessarilly correct. But, as with everything, you can tell which ones
are the experts quickly enough by their consistency and clarity.
Regards,
Mike.
* "believe" has a different meaning here than in the context of faith.
When we say people believe GR what we mean is that people are convinced
by GR's self consistency and agrement with observation that it models
the physical universe more accurately than we can measure it and
*could*, therefore, be 100% accurate.
Other related posts:
