Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - John Davis

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 441
61
Quote
Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

You see, that is where you and I differ.  I choose not to guess when I don't understand something completely.  I am humble enough to look up an answer and not guess on exactly what it means.  In my line of work, I am an accountant, non-euclidean geomentry does not play a factor, so I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with it.  But I should have guessed that. ;D  I mean, you actually claim the earth is flat.  If that is not a guess, then I don't know what is...
Do you really feel copy pasting a google search lead you to a better answer over deductive reasoning (read: actually reading the word before pasting it.) I am being a bit harsh. I suppose lots of educated people don't know who Euclid is.

Stash, he has told you exactly where to go and where to look. You were just too lazy to repeat the experiment before crying foul.

First I posted by accident and didn't know how to delete.  That wasn't the point I was trying to make but oh well. Yes, I know who Euclid is, doesn't mean that I understood what non euclidean geometry was. You don't  need to be an arrogant prick because of my ignorance. Unlike you I don't pretend to know it all.
Sorry, I was too harsh. You are absolutely right, and I let the heat of the argument overtake my good sense and manners. I am sincerely sorry. I agree with you more than you know; I hold very dear the phrase: "I know I am intelligent because I know I know nothing."

Again, I am very sorry. That was out of line.

62
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: May 30, 2019, 04:53:09 PM »
Its a grown up slushie. Prove me wrong. Plus they have them downstairs at work.

63
I'm not sure if this is included in Jane's post on the topic, but I have also started down the road of recreated Euclid's geometry through use of a new set of axioms based off the thought experiment above. We shall see if this is worthwhile. In the meanwhile, the current non-euclidean geometry serves well enough for most conversations.

The missing images are here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

I will post more information when I return home.

I hadn't realised we were all speaking with the president!  ;)
American President of the Flat Earth Society. It has since dissolved into this society. I may rebirth it again.

Quote
Well, Mr. President, would you accept an open invite to Antarctica for a little visit?
Of course. What do you think it would prove?

Quote
Is this what this is all about then? A quest to see who can make all the scientific discoveries in the world satisfy a flat earth model?
It gives me great joy you call them discoveries.

Quote
There are some jarringly massive leaps of faith in your article, John. For example, the force of accelaration being similar in effect to the force of gravity, therefore you can conclude they are the same????? ...
This is, of course, Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Quote

...
If you have a sincere passion for science, why are you not enrolled in a university putting that mind of yours to good use?
The academic establishment undermines science and its role in a free society. I do not see a time where I would ever work for such a body, but that's a conversation more on the sociological / philosophical side of things - and not what I imagine you want an answer to in this thread.


64
The missing images are here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

I will post more information when I return home.

65
Quote
Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

You see, that is where you and I differ.  I choose not to guess when I don't understand something completely.  I am humble enough to look up an answer and not guess on exactly what it means.  In my line of work, I am an accountant, non-euclidean geomentry does not play a factor, so I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with it.  But I should have guessed that. ;D  I mean, you actually claim the earth is flat.  If that is not a guess, then I don't know what is...
Do you really feel copy pasting a google search lead you to a better answer over deductive reasoning (read: actually reading the word before pasting it.) I am being a bit harsh. I suppose lots of educated people don't know who Euclid is.

Stash, he has told you exactly where to go and where to look. You were just too lazy to repeat the experiment before crying foul.

66
...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.
Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?
I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?
I wouldn't call a globe flat, but I would call it a non-euclidean closed surface.
A pizza box is square shaped. So is Tiananmen Square.

Is Tiananmen Square a pizza box?

...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.
Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?
I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

ummm...Here is a definition of Non-Euclidean geomentyr from a simple Google Search

What is non Euclidean geometry used for?
A non-Euclidean geometry is a rethinking and redescription of the properties of things like points, lines, and other shapes in a non-flat world. Spherical geometry—which is sort of plane geometry warped onto the surface of a sphere—is one example of a non-Euclidean geometry.Oct 17, 2014
What Are Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry?
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/.../what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry

A non-euclidean geometry is one which breaks or loosens one (or more) of Euclid's axioms. There shouldn't have been a need to google that.

Most often, this is done by relaxing or removing the parallel postulate which historically has a lot of contention around it.

Why not? 
Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

What a bunch of fools.
Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...
As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Ok, I am sure somebody that can explain this issue much better than I will respond.  But how about you do the same with simple one.  How come there is no accurate Flat Earth Map that reflects anything close to reality? 
I solved this problem first in the 2000s with a collapsing state map. More recently, it is solved also by myself in the relativistic model - as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation. There are a number of other solutions out there, many of which can be found here on our forums.

You solved the Flat Earth has no map problem back in the naughts? Please share the solution with us. Which state?

This is the same problem I posit, perhaps. Why are the distances to all these locations inaccurate given the supposed curve of the earth and how far we can see?

Quote
Which one(s)? Since you can't seem to name any specific examples and instead substitute references that are too vague to be addressed, I'm going to call your bluff and say there are no natural objects on earth whose distances apart cannot be explained using the geoid (when necessary... otherwise, ellipsoid, or sphere, depending on how far apart they are and the degree of accuracy needed) and atmosphere. If you think you do know of any, why don't you start with one, and state where and how much you think the discrepancy is? Otherwise, there is nothing to explain.
Well, Tom is in this thread. He has discussed the Monterey Bay Experiment at great length several times in the past.

The Bishop Experiment is nothing more than an anecdote, not an experiment. No evidence, just someone saying they could see kids playing with a frisbee on a beach 22 miles away. That's the best example you have?
I'd have to dig up the collapsing state one. I'll see if I have time later, but its the little ones birthday tomorrow so my time is a bit limited.

The Bay Experiment is an experiment, one that has been repeated many times. Why do you think it is not one?

As far as the example, I wasn't providing "the best example I have". I was providing a simple one to solve, one would guess. And instead, you have hand waved, showing that the roundist is not up to the task.

67
...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.
Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?
I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

ummm...Here is a definition of Non-Euclidean geomentyr from a simple Google Search

What is non Euclidean geometry used for?
A non-Euclidean geometry is a rethinking and redescription of the properties of things like points, lines, and other shapes in a non-flat world. Spherical geometry—which is sort of plane geometry warped onto the surface of a sphere—is one example of a non-Euclidean geometry.Oct 17, 2014
What Are Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry?
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/.../what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry

A non-euclidean geometry is one which breaks or loosens one (or more) of Euclid's axioms. There shouldn't have been a need to google that.

Most often, this is done by relaxing or removing the parallel postulate which historically has a lot of contention around it.

68
I'm banking on the Secret Wars. That or something more X-Men centric, as a response to the whole hulk being hulk and killing innocents.

69
Arts & Entertainment / Re: [PROJECT] FLAT EARTH IN MINECRAFT!
« on: May 30, 2019, 01:19:50 PM »
Inclusion of the icewall guards was a wise choice.

70
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek: Picard
« on: May 30, 2019, 01:19:08 PM »
I'm pretty excited about this. I haven't been able to stomach many of the new Star Treks that have come out since college. I'm hoping this one resets my expectations a bit.

I've got CBS all access through prime, though so far its only been used for the twilight zone (which has also been pretty fun, if perhaps a bit too rigid to their own format.)

71
...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.
Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?
I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

72
The Lounge / Re: The Grand Beer Thread
« on: May 30, 2019, 01:16:47 PM »
This is a great idea.

I've brewed many ciders over the years. I've got a beer kit for Christmas. I may have a go of it sometime soon. Any suggestions?

73
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: May 30, 2019, 01:15:26 PM »
I have to admit, I'm a fan of those frufru frappachino drinks star bucks has that are served on ice.

74
What a bunch of fools.
Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...
As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Ok, I am sure somebody that can explain this issue much better than I will respond.  But how about you do the same with simple one.  How come there is no accurate Flat Earth Map that reflects anything close to reality? 
I solved this problem first in the 2000s with a collapsing state map. More recently, it is solved also by myself in the relativistic model - as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation. There are a number of other solutions out there, many of which can be found here on our forums.

This is the same problem I posit, perhaps. Why are the distances to all these locations inaccurate given the supposed curve of the earth and how far we can see?

Quote
Which one(s)? Since you can't seem to name any specific examples and instead substitute references that are too vague to be addressed, I'm going to call your bluff and say there are no natural objects on earth whose distances apart cannot be explained using the geoid (when necessary... otherwise, ellipsoid, or sphere, depending on how far apart they are and the degree of accuracy needed) and atmosphere. If you think you do know of any, why don't you start with one, and state where and how much you think the discrepancy is? Otherwise, there is nothing to explain.
Well, Tom is in this thread. He has discussed the Monterey Bay Experiment at great length several times in the past.

75
What a bunch of fools.
Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...
As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

76
Flat Earth General / Re: Rowbotham A contemporary account
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:38:09 AM »
Lonegranger, each to their own, but a big poignant point is the last question I asked John in my last post.

Spending ones life writing a book that argues the earth is flat is an exercise in futility, and dare I say a total waste of time. With the natural world falling apart and in a state of crisis there are real problems out there to worry about rather than clutching on to imaginary ones.

Life comes down to values, Loneranger. Your values and passions differ from John's, and he's only doing what he's required to do anyway. Whatever comes of John Davis book, will be a learning experience. Don't worry about it.

Visiting this forum has been fun and educational in unexpected ways, but let's be honest, to an outsider, engaging in actual debate about the earth being either round or flat, is so so monumentally stupid.

But, behind each of these posts is a real life human being, and man, there are some red flags flying in John Davis last post.
Thank you for the overall sentiment, and perhaps I responded a bit harshly to your original post. However, there is a large jump between seeing possible "red flags" and attacking a real life human being and suggesting he is mad and alone.

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Rowbotham A contemporary account
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:35:03 AM »
By almost all accounts Samuel Rowbotham was a skilled debater and intelligent man. There will always be those on the other side of the debate that will levee these attacks against us, against common sense, reality and truth. You are amongst those who try, yet so far you have failed to get the spamghetti to stick to the wall.

I am not particularly keen on Rowbotham, aside from his historical importance and the teleological necessity of his arguments to have existed to get us to where we are today. Many of his arguments and so-called proofs I dismiss. Others have worth.

Aside from my work with the infinite plane model, I have also successfully shown that the average round earther believes the earth to be flat, without them even having the therewithall to realize this. I have built this into a robust theory that also stands without challenge.

My colleagues will always look at me from the side of their eye, much like those round earthers. As Antonio Salieri was to Mozart, their minds are simply not up to the task of competing against the voice of our generation. Its of no fault of their own - it is a symptom of their human condition and I feel great regret that my genius has such a heavy weight on the souls out there that also reach for truth.

As far as gravity goes, its simply a word we use to hide man's ignorance. Of course things fall. Do I think gravity is causing some sort of celestial race with giant balls of mud being flung about in circles at accelerating speeds? Of course not. That would be ludicrous.

Rowbotham was nothing more than a huckster who peddled all manner of snake oils, including his flat earth theories and miracle cures.   

Do you mean, the average round earther will "behave" as if the earth is stationary and flat? If so, I may actually tend to agree with you here.

If true, it's partly because it's an easier frame of reference for day to day living and makes the immediate world around, seem more accessible and relatable. People don't need to be constantly  thinking about the earth travelling at 30 kilometers a second in it's orbit around the sun or the movement of tectonic plates under their feet. The sun does it's thing daily, the weather does it's thing, the seasons come and go, and places stay fixed. In the back of their minds, though, they "believe" the larger picture of earth is a globe.

The average round earther is simply not obsessed with the shape of the earth like flat earthers, and simply lives on it. Round earthers have more important things (jobs, careers, mortgages, family, friends, clubs) to occupy their time in survival and day to day living.

John, have you been to a doctor lately?
How dare you. So you are now implying that the greatest mind of our time is jobless, career-less, mortgage-less, family-less, friendless and club-less, and crazy? You are aware we are discussing this in what is essentially an online club? I have a fantastic job working for a household name as a Senior Full Stack Engineer. I am Secretary to the Flat Earth Society, yes a club. I have three wonderful children, and a beautiful wife whom all live in my wonderful house. I have a great group of regular friends, and we meet every couple of weeks for a game night and dinner. And yes, I am mentally healthy, aside from overtaking from libations.

I'm sorry survival is so hard for you, given societies massive contributions over the past thousands of years to make it ridiculously easy for you to live. That seems to be no reason to put down those "people behind the posts" you talk of.

I have seen many claims of rowbotham engaging the scientists of his day in debates.
I have yet to see any proof or record of any.
He held lectures. A lecture is not a debate.
There were question and answer sessions at the end of the lectures. This is not a debate and left him the opportunity to stop answering at any time. Some accounts claim this occurred, he simply ran away.
So who from the scientific community did he actually debate?
Why did he completely fail to have anyone of standing in the least convinced that the earth might not be a globe?
Why did he not rate a mention in a single scientific publication outside his own book?
I'd look into Christine Garwood's excellent work on the subject. I believe a few are mentioned there, as well as ones mentioned between others in his group.

Lonegranger, each to their own, but a big poignant point is the last question I asked John in my last post.

Spending ones life writing a book that argues the earth is flat is an exercise in futility, and dare I say a total waste of time. With the natural world falling apart and in a state of crisis there are real problems out there to worry about rather than clutching on to imaginary ones.
And how is the great grangers time spent? Oh, insulting people on the internet over what they choose to believe, rather than solving real problems. Kettle, I'd like you meet pot. I'm sure you know far better how to spend my time than myself. I am reminded of a certain Fox and his tale; after all 'there are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.'


78
Flat Earth General / Re: How many flat earth models are there?
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:09:31 AM »
A lot I imagine hold the view we would push heavily around UA in past years.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:59:40 AM »
Now, looking this back over, it seems you are saying that you can tell the earth is rotating, or that the sun is rotating. Yes, for example you can use traverse Doppler shifts; this invalidates Mach's principle, in actuality, as you can use this to differentiate between a rotating system in a rotating universe from a still system in a still universe.

None of this even pretends to attack the point that you can equally predict the motions of the heavens by assuming a geocentric view rather than a heliocentric (or other centric) view. The fact is that you can treat either as your frame of reference - inertial or non-inertial. Both Newtonian physics (for inertial) and Relativity (for both) have this trait. In relativity, you might end up solving for the rotating of either body (the sun or the earth, depending on which frame you choose) by using third-body effects, or you could do all the math the hard way.

Non-inertial rotating reference frames are as equally valid as inertial ones; you just have to consider their pseudo forces - in this case Coriolis, centrifugal and perhaps Euler if you account for the jerk of the earth or sun as they are slowing down over time slightly. Either is equally valid, and either would provide equal ability of prediction as is a mathematical necessity and follows from the field equations. I have yet to see a reason why I'd prefer one over the other.

Both the sun and moon rotate. Both are in non-inertial frames of reference otherwise. Both can be described using Einstein's field equations, and doing so for both would yield equal predictive power. Neither are even the gravitational center.

From here, it seems like the burden of proof is solidly on your side of the argument.

In case you forget:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Principle of Relativity: the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference.

In other words, the laws of physics will appear the same regardless of what kind of observer you are - rotating, accelerating, jerking, or stationary - and what frame you choose. It is completely arbitrary what frame you choose.

80
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:18:57 AM »

Both the reference frame of the earth and that of the sun are equally valid. All motion is only realizable through a reference point.
I assume that be "All motion is only realizable through a reference point" you mean that all motion is relative.
That seems to be Mach's Principle, which asserts that inertial effects (acceleration and rotation) on a test mass are due to the motion of all other objects in the Universe and not simply the motion of that test mass.

Einstein was greatly influenced by Mach's Principle (and that name is due to Einstein).
He initially tried to develop a theory of relativity that included gravitation in which all motion (including acceleration) was relative but found it was not possible to do that and still reduce to Newton's Laws in the zero velocity/zero mass limit.

Details of the development of General Relativity can be found in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity John D. Norton, Index.
This and following sections referring to Mach's principle Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle").

The outcome of this is that while General Relative allows no single preferred reference frame only inertial motion (that is the motion of a particle along a geodesic in spacetime) is relative and can only be measured relative to other objects.
Local acceleration (that is the motion of a particle forced to deviate from a geodesic in spacetime) can, at least in principle, be measured locally by an accelerometer.

An object on a rotating Earth is subject to at least two such accelerations, one due to gravity another due to the rotation of the Earth.
If the earth were stationary (at least not rotating) the acceleration due to gravitation would still be present.
The difference could be detected in a number of ways:
  • A non-rotating plastic Earth would be perfectly spherical (Venus and the Sun are very nearly so) but the earth's ellipticity has been measured and agrees with the expected value derived from its rotation rate.

  • Coriolis and Eötvös effects are both detectable on the rotating Earth.

  • Gyroscopes and the Foucault pendulum detect an absolute rotation that seems relative to "the distant stars".

The rotation of the earth is measured very accurately by large ring laser gyroscopes as in the
VIII International Symposium “MODERN PROBLEMS OF LASER PHYSICS” (M p75 "Ring laser gyroscopes in the underground Gran Sasso Laboratories".

Quote from: John Davis
There would be no issue writing down the right metric for a system with Earth as the center and the Sun revolving around the earth; it would be a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, and would be equally predictive as one where the sun is the center of the universe (or some other point).
I doubt that Einstein or modern physicists would agree with you there: The earth rotates (causing an acceleration) and so does the sun.

Quote from: John Davis
Show me an experiment that will show that the Earth is moving around the Sun and not otherwise.
This is not "an experiment" but a measurement.
Stellar aberration, as first identified by James Bradley, is consistent with the earth orbiting the sun but not vice-versa,
see Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration by David Palm  or Math Pages, 2.5  Stellar Aberration
 

Quote from: John Davis
Then you will have proven your point and dismantled GR and SR in the process.
Not at all. Einstein was very clear that, much as he would have preferred all motion to be purely relative, acceleration, including rotation, could not be purely relative.
See the above references to Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity.
And this book isn't bad: Introduction to General Relativity by Lewis Ryder - all 459 pages.

Quote from: John Davis
There is NO preferred reference frame.
While there is no single preferred reference frame and inertial motion (along a geodesic - straight) cannot be determined by any local measurement local acceleration can be and is detected.

My understanding is the vast majority of physicists would say that relativity is not machian. Einstien himself held the same view. Look in his work: Ideas and Opinions where he states as much, himself without need to go to secondary and tertiary sources:
Quote from: Einstein
I was of course acquainted with Mach's view, according to which it appeared conceivable that what inertial resistance counteracts is not acceleration as such but acceleration with respect to the masses of the other bodies existing in the world. There was something fascinating about this idea to me, but it provided no workable basis for a new theory.

Quote
I doubt that Einstein or modern physicists would agree with you there: The earth rotates (causing an acceleration) and so does the sun.
Doubt all you'd like, this is mathematical fact and not my opinion.

81
What a bunch of fools.
Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

82
"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

83
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 24, 2019, 07:44:22 AM »
I have answered them by pointing out the current astronomical model of round earther's can be geocentric.

84
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 23, 2019, 12:46:38 PM »
Also, the equivalence principle.

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 23, 2019, 12:23:41 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.
It is as perfectly valid to talk from the frame of reference of the earth which is still, as it is to talk of the earth which is moving or accelerating. There is no preferred frame.
So long as you are talking about inertial Frames of Reference but Einstein was careful to distinguish between the two.
And an accelerating Earth is not an inertial Frame of Reference.

This was a matter that was of great concern to Einstein during has development of General Relativity.

Here are some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") and is the first part of that section:
Quote
Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")
What also attracted Einstein in this analysis was that it promised to remedy a defect he perceived in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.

In 1916, Einstein formulated this worry in a thought experiment. He imagined two fluid bodies in a distant part of space. These bodies, the reader quickly infers, are like stars or planets, which form roughly spherical shapes under their own gravity. Einstein further imagined that there is relative rotation between the two bodies about the axis that joins them. This relative rotation is verifiable by observers on each body, who can trace out the motion of the other body. Each would judge the other to be rotating.
It can happen in ordinary Newtonian physics that one of these bodies is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame and the other one is. In that case, the second rotating body will bulge but not the first. This effect arises on the earth. It rotates about the axis of its north and south poles. It bulges slightly at the equator as a result of centrifugal forces that seek to fling the matter of the earth away from this axis.

It would be entirely unacceptable, Einstein now asserted, were this to happen to two spheres in an otherwise empty space. For there is no difference in the observable relations between the two spheres. Each rotates with respect to the other. So why should just one bulge? The supposition of Newton's absolute space or of inertial systems, Einstein protested, was an inadequate explanation. Einstein demanded something observable to make the difference.
<< Then a discussion of "Mach's Principle." >>
And the discussions on whether rotational motion is or is not relative till hasn't stopped.

But for all practical situations in "our locality" linear motion is relative but rotational motion is absolute.

Quote from: John Davis
This would actually be a threat against my theory which is admittedly sneaking in a preferred frame.
Both the reference frame of the earth and that of the sun are equally valid. All motion is only realizable through a reference point.

There would be no issue writing down the right metric for a system with Earth as the center and the Sun revolving around the earth; it would be a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, and would be equally predictive as one where the sun is the center of the universe (or some other point).

Show me an experiment that will show that the Earth is moving around the Sun and not otherwise. Then you will have proven your point and dismantled GR and SR in the process. There is NO preferred reference frame.

86
Flat Earth General / Re: Short T-Rex.
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:43:01 PM »
Tell me, you supporters - how can long necked dinosaurs like the Brontosaurus ever hope to have any sort of circulatory system - with that amount of pressure to feed their brains, up those necks to feed from tall trees?

Oh, are the brains are peanut sized? Wow, fantastic.

Oh, wait that's not enough? A pressure valve at each point of the neck with no psychical evidence. And hollow bones. You know to solve that other issue we have.

Oh, what else? Gravity would have to change to support their massive impossibly large bodies? I'm not sure physics is on board so we'll walk on by this pone in press release list.

Oh, hell, how did these massive giants feed themselves? Their ratios tell me they are hungry - even those long necked impossible Lock Ness motherfuckers the Brontos. How did they not destroy the environment? Why aren't we allowed to import pests and animals?

Oh, nope? Ok. gravity was lower then and we had a bunch of food.

Oh? what? I don't know they were rainbow coloured tiny t-rex hummingbirds that had feathers, but then didn't, and well.

Their most notable contributions, I think we can all agree, are in pop culture. Who doesn't like seeing a picture of a dinosaur. It excites the mind, and the imagination. I content whether you had reason or not, you'd still support these dinofauxs just like ancient man support the fae.

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Short T-Rex.
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:26:11 PM »
Oh come now guys. I know I'm heavy handed about it all. But dinosaur experts will never solve any real problems. The problems we have every day. They won't solve any scientific ones either. They will sit in their towers and dream of dragons and windmills, and what not.

Those serious earth scientists, the geologists and those that contribute to the field by an arms length are not whom I talk of.

People just like dinosaurs. Something about it appeals to us, as much so as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

88
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Trump In On The Conspiracy?
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:21:09 PM »
I ask, why wouldn't they fake it.

89
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Trump In On The Conspiracy?
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:20:11 PM »
Typical; Trump has big plans to send us to the moon that are completely unrealizable both physically and due to monetary reasons. Then the reason we never went back to the moon was a partisan affair, not that the earth is round.
"The reason we never went back to the moon was" also due to monetary reasons not that it was physically unrealisable. In any case what more would have been gained?

Transporting fragile bags of water, flesh and bone that need massive resources for any long term life support is a very costly affair.
Not only that but so far at least humans expect a reasonable chance of returning to Earth but satellites and robot explorers have no such expectation ;),

The Saturn V that launched Apollo 11 for a short visit to the moon and back had a launch mass of about 2,970,000 kg while
ihe Falcon 9 v1.1 that launched the DSCOVR to orbit some 1.5 million km away from Earth had a launch mass a bit over 500,000 kg.

Are you so certain we got there? - to the moon? How many Apollo missions were there? In the middle of the cold war, would you not reach the moon - by any means possible. To not lie would be to betray the Country, State, and hell... God himself. That, well... that is easy to swallow. But to keep sending them up there, American Heroes (and a few jerks)... Again and again.

That would tax ones soul heavily. Why not fake the whole ordeal?

Why not save a few lives. And even more when you won the Cold War.

90
Flat Earth General / Re: Food for thought
« on: May 22, 2019, 04:52:05 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.
It is as perfectly valid to talk from the frame of reference of the earth which is still, as it is to talk of the earth which is moving or accelerating. There is no preferred frame.

This would actually be a threat against my theory which is admittedly sneaking in a preferred frame.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 441