Posted on 03/28/2006 12:09:01 PM PST by orionblamblam
> I'd like to know what major publishing firm printed his 1,000 page tome.
I bet "Kinko's."
Not true. According to Einstein (and he doesn't differ here from prior mechanics), accelerated and unaccelerated motions are two distinct classes that can be distinguished. IOW, two observers moving relative to each other, one of which is accelerated and the other not, can tell which is which.
Not that they've told us, anyway... (sneaking off to don tinfoil)
Don't tell me, I'm blond.
ECF, ECE :-)
http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/aeroblks/6dofecefquaternion.html
He actually is right. There is simply no way to know for sure (short of going outside and looking back in) to know if the universe is geocentric or acentric.
Sir Fred Hoyle was no Christian, yet he still recognized that,
"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance (Hoyle, F., 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.)"
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory "wrong" in any meaningful physical sense. (Hoyle, F., 1973, Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.)"
Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity says that 'you can consider the earth as being at rest', mostly because according to Michelson-Morely and all other such experiments, it appears as though it is at rest!
People believe a lot of things are 'proven' when they are simply commonly-accepted belief.
Actually, the whole of Celestial Navigation *depends* on it. For celestial nav to work, the Earth must be at the center inside a great round sphere on which are all the stars, planets and the sun. This sphere keeps all of the celestial bodies equidistant from the Earth, moving together (except for those on the ecliptic) and rotating about the Earth. :-)
"why are objects as ephemeral as clouds apparently moving in tandem?"
Because they are moving with you at the same speed.
"Why wouldn't they be losing the race at some point due to the declining strength of the molecular pull?"
gravity.
"In other words, if I am on a carousel and holding out a steel rod, it will certainly move in tandem with me because it is solid and connected. But if a hold out a balloon on a string, it will quickly lag behind."
That's called wind resistence. Space is -almost- a vacuum. There is -some- drag on the outside edge of the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has more-or-less reached equilibrium and that outside portion that exceeds the pull of the Earth's gravity long-ago was swept away.
But do you see my point? Although there is friction between air molecules, it shouldn't be enough to move a column of atmosphere may miles thick in perfect sync with the surface of the Earth.
And yet maybe it is. But when you imagine that the geocentric theory is correct for a moment, it does seem to accomodate some phenomena -- while not others -- better.
> There is simply no way to know for sure (short of going outside and looking back in) to know if the universe is geocentric or acentric.
Hogwash. If something is spinning around something else as fast as these crystal spheres are supposed to be spinning around the Earth, the centrigual force on them would be most astonishing. Hell, the sudden changes in acceleration felt by the other planets and the sun as they do their little epicycle tricks would distort 'em.
> "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory "wrong" in any meaningful physical sense."
Hoyle said a lot of silly things.
> Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity says that 'you can consider the earth as being at rest', mostly because according to Michelson-Morely and all other such experiments, it appears as though it is at rest!
*Everything* appears at rest in such tests. Clearly, everything *ain't* at rest.
Man, that Ian Paisley could whale on those drums....
It isn't. That's why we have weather. Pressure decreases as altitude increases, coriolis forces cause rotation as air tries to move laterally between pressure gradients, and friction varies between different types of surface. Clouds don't move in tandem for very long.
I'm going to hazard a wild guess that you aren't a physicist. Am I right?
Where are the anti-evos BTW? I've never seen them so quiet...
"Where are the anti-evos BTW? I've never seen them so quiet..."
They are all out buying this guy's book.
Does it matter whether I am a physicist? (I'm not). Do I lose the right to question a subject because I am not annointed in some way?
Guess we'd all better sit down and shut up about our skepticism about affirmative action (sorry, not sociologists), global warming (not climatologists), the Euro (not economists), etc.
For which, you pay thru the nose. There's no real substitute. (No, Octave et al. are not real substitutes.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.