"If the earth is round then....

  • 8 Replies
  • 2016 Views
"If the earth is round then....
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:21:56 PM »
the theory of relativity must be wrong."

So says christoph von mettenheim.

http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-01/number-03/v01n03.pdf

I searched the website for this, but no mention, I wonder if you flat earthers have come across it.

There is also this:

http://www.amazon.com/Popper-versus-Einstein-philosophical-foundations/dp/3161469100/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368660050&sr=8-1&keywords=christoph+von+mettenheim




Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2013, 01:37:48 PM »
Not many people will search through that to find out why. Could you provide a quote or something about how they disagree with each other?
Why use evidence
Ok

Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2013, 10:09:43 AM »
Not many people will search through that to find out why. Could you provide a quote or something about how they disagree with each other?

Yes I will, I am currently at university at the moment. As soon as I get back i'll dig up the paragraph with the argument in it.

Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2013, 10:16:01 AM »
I might as well post it up now, I have a little free time.
(29) But relativity will, even starting from this premise of time de ned by
the course of the sun, predict a time di erence for the plane surrounding
the equator13. It is, as I understand it, a necessary theoretical implication
of relativity that the clock starting and arriving exactly when the sun has
reached its zenith at Greenwich will not show 12.00 h sharp at its arrival,
but some fractions of a second less, and this although we have de ned 12.00
h as being the moment when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich. So, in
spite of our nominalistic de nition of time permitting no more than one time
function for one location, and assuming only that we can circumnavigate the
earth, we can infer from relativity that,
1. time will be 12.00 h when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich, and
2. time will not be 12.00 h when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich.
(30) Assuming that a circumnavigation of the earth is possible, the theory
is therefore contradictory.

[...]

(32) So we are faced with a truly enigmatic situation. And since the mathematical
formulae of special relativity are faultless this implies that one of its
empirical premises must be given up. But special relativity rests on only two
empirical premises. One of them is the assumption that the laws of nature
(physics) are universal; giving up this would be the end of all explanation.
And the other is the hypothesis of the constant spreading velocity of light.
Therefore it must be this second premise which has to be given up. In other
words: Special relativity does not explain, or establish, the relativity of space
and time; but it does refute the empirical hypothesis of the constant spreading
velocity of light 14. If we can travel around the world and come back to our
starting point, then the velocity of light, if it is nite, cannot be constant.
And since the constancy of the spreading velocity of light is the fundamental
premise both of special and of general relativity this all boils down to the
thesis: If the earth is round then the theory of relativity must be wrong.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2013, 10:43:02 AM »
I have a couple of problems with this. First is that he deals only in abstract and not how the world works. It's all fine and good to make assertions, but they must be supported by empirical evidence. My second problem, is that he makes a definition of time and it is not clear if this definition is, in fact, the definition that applies to Physics. Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.

The more I think about it, the more I do not follow this argument. If the clocks arrive in the same time and the same place then they have the same space time coordinates. What I would infer as happening is the clocks took different paths through spacetime one clocks causing it to travel a shorter distance through the dimension of time. It's not like there is a time phase discrepancy being proposed, just that the clocks show different passage of time.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2013, 11:03:42 AM »
I have a couple of problems with this. First is that he deals only in abstract and not how the world works. It's all fine and good to make assertions, but they must be supported by empirical evidence. My second problem, is that he makes a definition of time and it is not clear if this definition is, in fact, the definition that applies to Physics. Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.
Someone asked me to put in an excerpt, so that people could get a sample to see if they wanted to go through it. These "problems" you have are because you did not go and read the article before replying.
Quote
The more I think about it, the more I do not follow this argument. If the clocks arrive in the same time and the same place then they have the same space time coordinates. What I would infer as happening is the clocks took different paths through spacetime one clocks causing it to travel a shorter distance through the dimension of time. It's not like there is a time phase discrepancy being proposed, just that the clocks show different passage of time.
there aren't "two clocks" the argument is based around the assumption that the sun is at a certain position at a certain time and then trying to postulate that this time is different by a clock, so the assumption must be incorrect.

I do not agree with the argument, but if you go through it you will see how well it is argued.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 11:06:40 AM by Amalgafiend »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2013, 11:10:47 AM »
I have a couple of problems with this. First is that he deals only in abstract and not how the world works. It's all fine and good to make assertions, but they must be supported by empirical evidence. My second problem, is that he makes a definition of time and it is not clear if this definition is, in fact, the definition that applies to Physics. Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.
Someone asked me to put in an excerpt, so that people could get a sample to see if they wanted to go through it. These "problems" you have are because you did not go and read the article before replying.
Quote
The more I think about it, the more I do not follow this argument. If the clocks arrive in the same time and the same place then they have the same space time coordinates. What I would infer as happening is the clocks took different paths through spacetime one clocks causing it to travel a shorter distance through the dimension of time. It's not like there is a time phase discrepancy being proposed, just that the clocks show different passage of time.
there aren't "two clocks" the argument is based around the assumption that the sun is at a certain position at a certain time and then trying to postulate that this time is different by a clock, so the assumption must be incorrect.

I do not agree with the argument, but if you go through it you will see how well it is argued.

I didn't?  Oh weird, cause I did, and in fact the issues the first two points I made are not in your excerpt.  Do you not want to discuss this?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2013, 11:15:26 AM »
I didn't?  Oh weird, cause I did, and in fact the issues the first two points I made are not in your excerpt.  Do you not want to discuss this?

Ok, now you have the information why don't you go an research if he has the right defintion of time.

Saying "I don't know if this is the physics defintion of time" is not an argument.

Furthermore, the empirical evidence he brings up *in detail* is edison's experiment and how it could not have falsified einsteins theory.

Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.

Does Einstein's theory claim this?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 11:21:26 AM by Amalgafiend »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "If the earth is round then....
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2013, 03:39:37 PM »
there aren't "two clocks" the argument is based around the assumption that the sun is at a certain position at a certain time and then trying to postulate that this time is different by a clock, so the assumption must be incorrect.

I do not agree with the argument, but if you go through it you will see how well it is argued.

In the Hafele & Keating experiment, which is what he is basing the time dilation contradiction on, the experiment was to fly caesium atom clocks around the world in planes. The sun is being used as a physical phenomena to give a corroborative measure of a certain time, noon in this case, but the example most definitely uses clocks. To have a clock disagree with another is the entire basis of the confirmation. I again say that it seems to me that he is asserting that the clock that runs fast and shows a time after noon, is defying his definition of noon, as defined in his article. I think the correct interpretation is that the fast clock is showing that it took more time for it to arrive at noon. This is not contradictory, instead it supports what Einstein's theory predicted.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.