[geocentrism] Re: Last call RB2 complete

  • From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:49:00 +0100

Hi Robert,

 > RB:How do you extend a meter stick through NOTHING? Nothing is the
 > absence of existence - nihil, non-being, non esse - not the physical
 > vacuum, not empty space .... not anything, just NOTHING. Don't try to
 > picture nothing, because the sense faculties can only perceive
 > reality, and NOTHING has no reality.  Don't try to use a beam from a
 > laser gauge to measure distance in it, because if light (or any
 > matter) were present inside nothing, it couldn't be nothing.

This is just waffle.  You have not shown one inconsistency in SR or GR.

 > www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml -

I've seen this debunked elsewhere, the stats were completely fudged.

 > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
 > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_
 > changing_010815.html

Interesting, but they don't show any inconsistency in SR or GR.  Maybe c 
has changed a little over billions of years (we don't know yet), but 
that's not the point.  SR nd GR *postulate* that c is constant, nowhere 
do they contradict themselves on this, and they happen to be accurate to 
a greater degree than we can currently measure.

 > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000
 > 719.html

Highly controversial result, has it been confirmed by anybody else.

 > With intuition and experience. Galilean relativity uses normal
 > addition, and conforms to the reality of measurement. Occam's razor
 > prefers common sense to the nonsensical.

Only to a certain level of accuracy, GR does a lot better.  You keep
stating that SR and GR are nonsensical but you haven't pointed to one
inconsistency.  I find it rather ironic hearing "Occam's razor" from a 
geocentric, but it doesn't apply if the more complex theory out-predicts 
the simpler one.  Remember "keep it as simple as possible, but no 
simpler", I'm sure you know who said that :)

Re: occams razor, how do you explain the universe's rate of rotation 
around the line through the celestial poles gradually slowing down?  And 
what about the odd hiccup in the universe's rotation that just happens 
to coincide with an earthquake here on earth that, by conventional 
physics, has affected the earth's speed of rotation?

 >> 6. Space has two geometries, one for matter, the other for
 >> photons.
 >> Do you mean that they are different frames of reference?
 > Just look at a Minkowski diagram: what obvious geometrical difference
 > is there between light and particle geodesics?

You tell me, I'm not going to try to make your argument for you.

 >>>> 7. Space is curved near large objects(GR) but empty
 >>>> everywhere(SR).
 >>> Are you saying that there needs to be stuff in space for there to
 >>> be curvature?  Are you happy with the idea of a straight line in
 >>> a vacuum?
 > Can nothing curve space? How would space know where to curve , and
 > how much? If 'vacuum' means space with properties that enable and
 > influence light paths and speed, then this is what everyone else
 > calls 'aether'.

If, for that sake of argument, you assumed that an object could be in a 
vacuum, do you think it would still be affected by gravity?

 >>> Can you name one observation of the aether other than the
 >>> Michel-Morleyson experiment and one alternative theory to
 >>> relativity that equally agrees with observation.
 > Just one? I choose not to do so.

Nuff said.

 >>>>> The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
 >>>> Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's
 >>> relativity is a true contradiction.
 >>> Well, I agree that paradox is more usually used to to mean
 >>> something that is an apparent contradiction despite it not being
 >>> so, but then they are paradoxes after all :)  But more importantly,
 >>> where are the contradictions in relavity?
 > See items 1 to 7 in the original posting

You didn't point out one contradiction.  Do you know what a 
contradiction is?

 >>>>> There are several ways to reolve the twin paradox (all
 >>>>> essentially the same though) but it requires an understanding
 >>>>> of the maths if you want to be absolutely sure there is no
 >>>>> paradox.  The simple answer is that one of the twins turns
 >>>>> around and thus feels accelaration while the other doesn't.
 >>>>> This is where the symmetry (and supposed paradox) is broken.
 >>>> There is no symmetry breaking - this argument was abandoned
 >>>> long ago.
 >>> Really?  By whom?  Can you back that up?
 > By RB:  Why is who supports this more important than its truth value?
 > Will we vote to see if it's valid reasoning, or can we decide for
 > ourselves?

You said "this argument was abandoned long ago." thus appealing to 
others' opinions to back your own.  I simply asked you to back up *your* 

 >>>> Let two space travelers depart in opposite directions from
 >>>> earth with identical histories of motion for speed,
 >>>> acceleration and deceleration. Their trips will be symmetric in
 >>>> Minkowski space, since their world lines will be mirror images of
 >>>> each other within the light cone that has Earth as
 >>>> the origin, at t =0. Yet the contradiction remains, with
 >>>> perfect trip symmetry....... A returns older than B   and A
 >>>> returns younger than B
 >>> No, if they experience identical forces they will age the same
 >>> amount. I think (but check this out on BA, I'm just figuring it
 >>> out in my head as I type) that while they are moving away from
 >>> each other they will both see each other's clcck run slow, then
 >>> when they both turn around they will both see each other's clock
 >>> leap forward ahead of their own (or go very quickly while they
 >>> turn around if you like) then while they're approaching each
 >>> other they will see (or rather deduce, I'm ignoring doppler
 >>> effects) each other's clock run slow again until they come back
 >>> into agrement when they meet :)
 > One: there is no provision in SR to see a clock 'leap forward' into
 > the future! A clock in relative motion to an observer can only be
 > seen to dilate, to slow down, the rate dependent on the instantaneous
 > speed. So each will see the other age less for the whole trip.

'See' can be misleading, 'deduce' after taking into account the time it 
takes the light signals to reach you would be more accurate.  But a 
change of frame of reference does entail distant clocks in the positive 
direction of the change leaping forward.  It is implicit in the Lorentz 
transformation.  It is a result of the relativity of simultaneous 
events.  Surely if you can reason with world lines in Minkowski 
spacetime then you already know this.

 > Two: if a third twin is added - a triplet C who stays behind on
 > earth, then each one will agree that the other 2 are younger!

Nope, wrong again.  If all we add to your example above is a third stay 
at home twin then we just have the twin paradox twice.  The two that go 
away age the same as before but age less than the one that stays at 
home: no contradiction.

 > One of the demonic results of accepting relativity is the havoc it
 > plays with logic, a vital component of our God-given reasoning. The
 > impossible becomes the normal, and this influences our moral values,
 > too, as Biblical errancy is also adopted as normal.

If you think truth is determined by morals and ease of learning then you 
and I have very different ideas about what "truth" means.  If you think 
that just because something is counter-intuitive and difficult it is 
therefore illogical then you don't know what logic is.

 >>> I notice that Worzel raised this symmetry issue on BA, and
 >>> their response was to rattle off the postulates of relativity.
 >>> Ignoratio elenchi.   "You can run, but you can not hide...."
 >>> You didn't look very hard then, I have had some excellent answers
 >>> on there that have really helped me.  Because some of them *do*
 >>> understand it rather than just know how to rattle off the
 >>> postulates and theorems they can see where one's misconceptions
 >>> are coming from - books can never do that.  Care to give a link
 >>> to the post you're talking about?
 > Look up 'Worzel' and 'twin'; then link me to where they answered the
 > exact question that Worzel posed.

No.  *You* came up with the reference, *you* back it up.

 > Speaking of dizzy, if I am on a rotating earth, spinning at least 500
 > mph, why don't I feel dizzy, if I use subjective testing as above?

Angular velocity is measured in revolutions per unit of time.  You spin 
once per day, that's not very fast.  Try turning on the spot over the 
course of 24 hours, it probably won't make you dizzy either, even if you 
did it on a very fast moving train.

 >>> I've never heard of the expansion forces of Mach.  Is this the
 >>> 5th fundimental force?  You talk about it alongside gravity as if
 >>> the two are equally well established and understood.
 > A GC term for the universal equivalent of the Newtonian pseudo-force
 > - the centrifugal force on objests in relative motion.

Oh, ok, and everything has an outward centrafugal force from the earth 
due to it revolving around the earth right?  Do you have any maths so I 
can see how the forces balance for the moon and the geostationary 
satellites, or should I just take your word for it that it all works out.

 > As described in a prior post: The satellite - no longer a geostat -
 > will move to a new value of d for which the new velocity will satisfy
 > Ag = Af + Ak. This holds for the Moon as well - any satellite not
 > self-propelled.

But surely that implies that d^2(Ag)/d((Ak)^2) = A''(f) which is 
obviously a monsterous violation of the Mornington Cresent principle ;)

Serously though, if you're gonna chuck in maths formulas you should 
really give the postulates and relevant theoroms of your theory, 
otherwise it's just meaningless symbol waving.


Other related posts: