Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
thanks zach and icot
How is the title now?
Acceptable to everyone?
The Deep-Theory end of the continuum of scientific “knowledge” (being based as it is on primarily extrapolation and reasoned conjecture, based on unproven assumptions) is constantly changing. Most frequently being overturned and replaced rather than “evolving”
a few major examples:
geocentric/heliocentric
gradual evolution/punctuated equilibrium
newtonian/einsteinian motion
cause and effect/quantum non-determinism
steady state/big bang
The other end of the spectrum (technology) being based on repeatable, observable, measurable, existing phenomena, although not sacrosanct, and while subject to frequent modification and clarification is almost infinitely more reliable and changes generally by a process of “evolution”, not “revolution”
When evaluating the reliability of “science” one must be very careful where on the continuum one is referring to.
zach
What would be the situation if the earth’s speed was twice what it is now?
Would we feel the spin?
Would we weigh less?
could be perhaps the earth’s solar-system centered universe, as far as that objection.
charlie:
Also seems to me to be irrefutably conclusive proof.
Nevertheless, against such conclusive logic (and don’s ask me to explain), I have a feeling the earth actually is the center and the universe revolves around us
It has nothing to do with two perspectives.
If you are sitting and toasting marshmallows on alpha centauri, and i ask you how far would you have to travel in a circular orbit around the earth in your spaceship? You would say 24 light years. And if i asked you if you could travel that distance in 24 hours, what would your answer be?
Have you actually heard the combined gravity terutz? If not, i wouldn’t say it is farfetched until you know what it is. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the distribution of mass within the universe is not homogeneous. My suspicion is that it probably doesn’t hold water but I won’t comment on it’s validity until I’ve heard it’s explanation.
As far as the third problem you have not answered it at all.
Daniel Defoe
Yes, that’s what im saying, but if you are now going to argue about this im not interested, while a totally unrelated issue is on hand here.
volvie, volvie
your quotes, though interesting are regarding another issue entirely.
The issue of what is the effective center of the SOLAR SYSTEM.
heliocentric (helio meaning sun) and geocentric (geo meaning earth) refers to the two perspectives of whether the earth REVOLVES around the sun or whether the sun REVOLVES around the earth. This can be decided either way. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the earth ROTATES or is still and the universe revolves around the earth.
But please keep trying. I’m hoping you will turn up something.
Actually volvie, we are sort of on the same page. I personally believe that probably the universe revolves around the earth. However I don’t believe this can be supported by relativity or any other current scientific knowledge, and am content in this.
Now there are many problems with proving this. Three have been mentioned in this thread:
1. coriolus effect
2. focault’s pendulum
3. the utterly impossible speed of the stars that must necessarily occur.
Number 1 and 2 have been explained by some as due to the combined gravitational force of the universe as it travels around the earth. (I have no idea if this explanation holds water or not)
Would you like to do some googling, copying and pasting to see if you can answer the third problem mentioned here?
Actually volvie is it?, we are sort of on the same page. I personally believe that probably the universe revolves around the earth. However I don’t believe this can be supported by relativity or any other current scientific knowledge, and am content in this.
Now there are many problems with proving this. Three have been mentioned in this thread:
1. coriolus effect
2. focault’s pendulum
3. the utterly impossible speed of the stars that must necessarily occur.
Number 1 and 2 have been explained by some as due to the combined gravitational force of the universe as it travels around the earth. (I have no idea if this explanation holds water or not)
Would you like to do some googling, copying and pasting to see if you can answer the third problem mentioned here?
That’s very interesting. Although that paper (from mathpages.com) is referring to particle motion, if you will look at the math a little further down
Yet I’ve quoted how this discussion relates to the Earth specifically
Your quote refers to LINEAR MOTION in relation to the earth, NOT to the movement of the earth itself (rotational or linear)
Again your quote refers to purely linear motion and linear acceleration. Can you copy something that refers to the equivalence of rotational acceleration in regard to two frames of reference? If not the quotes have no relevance to the discussion.
As I have said, as zach has said, this is referring to linear acceleration not rotational acceleration.
no i only see one that is joseph, i could be wrong though
health and unknown613 please email me at [email protected]
Please bring your request here
Yes again, I agree with you 100% in terms of practical utility.
And again I point out that there is nevertheless a fundamental difference in essence at all levels. And I feel this is an important point in terms of understanding the Creation, though not in conducting measurements.
I don’t believe we disagree in any way except that we are stressing different aspects of the same truth.
“ie no difference at all”
again, at least to me, it is very important to be rigorous in the use of language in the description of basic principles of the conduct of the universe.
It is, of course NOT “no difference at all” There will always be a difference, under all real circumstances.
What you mean to say is that in practical terms to humans, and according to our perceptions there is, in a practical sense, “no difference at all”
Yes “practically speaking” there is no significant difference.
But still I think it is crucially important, in order to understand the difference between the two, in a philosophical sense, that they NEVER, in truth, agree, in that:
There is a FUNDAMENTAL and highly significant difference between the two in the way they describe the very nature of the laws of the reality of existence created by HaKodesh Borchu
The fact that our perceptual and measurement capabilities happen to be limited to a certain range, in no way diminishes this deeply basic difference.
In the field of Logic a basic principle is that: An almost-truth is not a type of Truth but rather a type of Falsehood.
Yes,I see your point.
“When speaking about how relativity reconciles the two, we must realize that that applies to the yearly orbit. “
Relativity has been invoked to reconcile the rotation of the earth NOT it’s yearly orbit (revolution).
The proponent’s say that the earth does not rotate but that the sun revolves around the earth. The only way to establish this is by invoking EINSTEINIAN relativity. The question about the yearly revolution of the earth around the sun or vice versa is a question of perspective and relativity in a general sense not einsteinian relativity, and this is NOT the issue that is discussed in matters of reconciling religion and science
And I was just trying to clarify a small detail in your post.
But you are absolutely right and I should not have commented on your post.
Health
What you copied is correct but has nothing to do with the fact that a light year is a unit of distance. It has all kinds of uses, all kinds of importance for many things but it is a unit of distance, not a unit of time
I know you want me to say you are correct so I won’t continue to try and convince you.
HaLevi you have it exactly backwards. The whole controversy is in trying to advance the notion that the earth doesn’t rotate, but the universe revolves around it. The orbit of the earth around the sun is not the issue. The question is does the earth revolve or does the sun rise and set in a real sense. It’s not a question of a yearly phenomenon but a daily one.
As far as centrifugal force and other measurements, the proponents of this theory explain that it is the combined gravitational force of the universe as it revolves around the earth that causes those effects, not centrifugal force. I have no idea if this makes sense or not.
The notion of whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa is another issue entirely, though also interesting it has nothing to do with einsteins relativity, only with the general notion that movements are relative to one’s perspective.
In the case where the object is moving slowly or not near a VERY large gravity field Newtonain mechanics and relativity give EXACTLY the same results.
Am I wrong in stating that they DO NOT give the exactly same results, only that the differences are too minute for our ability to measure them?
Do you mean to state that if a ball going exactly 30 miles an hour from my perspective, passes another ball going in the opposite direction of the first at exactly 30 miles an hour from my perspective, that an observer on one ball (with a perfect measuring device) will measure the speed of the other ball at 60 mph EXACTLY?
Okay, I think I can explain the answer to your question pretty simply:
Since time is relative to considerations of space as applied to a particular system which is fixed relative to the other system to which it can be compared, the perception is relative to the observer and his location both in terms of time AND space (leaving out gravitational effects), considering his absolute frame of reference relative to a moving frame of reference that can be considered absolute only relative to the other frame of reference when moving in an absolute time-space continuum that is relative to the originally considered time-space continuum. Of course this is true only if you consider both frames of reference as independent only in a relative sense, or absolute if you consider both frames of reference to be linked in a universal manner, with totally independent matrices on both relevant axes.
Now assuming you have understood me so far the conclusion can be easily reached that therefore the two perspectives will be separated by a differential consideration of perspective equal to the sum of the speed of each system as measured from the other one, minus C as measured from a third unrelated system.
:-;
this was a joke of course
So you want to understand Relativity
Okay, here’s a basic introduction to the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_mathematics_of_general_relativity
I don’t understand it at all, it may be that no one understands it in a real sense, but this is what I understand from Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s book: “The Science of G-d”
- If you were to travel on a light beam that leaves a star 100 light years away from earth.
You look at your watch as you leave the star, you look at it again when you arrive on earth, ZERO time will have passed for you and for your watch. But to the people on earth, if they could somehow have observed your voyage, they would measure that 100 years had elapsed from the time you left the star until you got here. Something like that.
Depends on the persective of the system you are in relative to the other system of interest. I think that is also kind of the nutshell of the theory in general
Even if you could run fast enough, I think you would lose the weight as you stopped running. But you would still be physically younger (or older?) than you would have otherwise been.
the question was: “does anybody here understand the theory of realativity??”
I think the question HAS been answered. The answer is NO
from wikipedia
Tachyon
In special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at the speed of light, it is not impossible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light. The hypothetical elementary particles that have this property are called tachyons. Their existence has neither been proven nor disproven, but even so, attempts to quantize them show that they may not be used for faster-than-light communication.[23] Physicists sometimes regard the existence of mathematical structures similar to tachyons arising from theoretical models and theories as signs of an inconsistency or that the theory needs further refining.[24]
A light year is by definition a measurement of distance. I don’t think you could find a single physicist who would not agree indisputably with this statement (maybe a few high school science teachers).
Since the distance measurement is based on the speed of light you can easily infer a time measurement from it as regards light, but it is a distance unit. It is not a unit of volume, weight, mass or time.
This is confusing for many people so I wanted to clear it up.
from Wikipedia: “A light-year, also light year or lightyear, (symbol: ly) is a unit of length” It does not mention that it is also a unit of time.
It was there 10 light years ago
A light year is a measurement of distance, not time
Rosie Ruiz, the first woman to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon
Fascinating, I didn’t know that. So before her, no woman had ever finished the Boston Marathon?
You didn’t answer the question. How do you, or einstein, account for the necessary yet impossible speed of the celestial bodies revolving around the earth?
And besides, the principle of equivalence only pertains to linear acceleration not rotational acceleration.
I have no problem accepting that the heavens revolve around the earth, but if you want to show this is so according to the principles of science then do so honestly or admit you don’t know the answer, and hope to eventually find it.
Personally,I don’t particularly care either way but if you accept that the earth is stationary and the universe revolves around it, then scientifically speaking you do have to explain a certain problem:
Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our solar system is 4 light years away. It would have to travel 24 light years to make one circuit around the earth (2 x pi x radius of 4). Thus it would have to travel 24 light years in 24 hours or 1 light year per hour.
That is approx 8,000 times the speed of light
A problem that needs to be explained before you can accept that the stars revolve around the earth.It doesn’t bother me but if you wish to be scientifically consistent, it needs to be solved.
You say “Lag La’Omer” every night?
I hope you don’t say it with a Brocha.
The potato kugel thing, as far as I’m concerned is not a theory but a fact, and I intend to live my life as such.
As far as the electrons, of course you know their effects on a persons health. Just imagine what would happen if all the electrons left a persons body. You would have nothing left but protons and neutrons. If you know even grade school chemistry you would know that is not compatible with life, let alone health. ergo…
The reason is that Lag La’Omer is more difficult to say.
“Known Quantities of Sugar” @ No.1, is there a Number? If not. Then you see already the PROOF of this written format of Study.
This was not a study. It was a review of studies. What I wrote was a very brief summary of the review. It was not the review itself.
it sounds like they know about the “Diabetes” part. So why in the world they jump into, Details of the Mild-er problem That is – Behavior
Because a study or review never looks at all questions re an issue. It looks at a very specific question. Usually one that is of interest to the community or to related research
Okay, maybe the lightning was a stretch, but if you walk too close to one of those overwatted fixtures, the positive ions in the surrounding air will pull electrons from your body. And I think we all can agree that electrons are necessary for good health.
Well, according to my explanation, that would be correct. But don’t do it until icot gives his point of view.
If you put a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture, the fixture can only supply 60 watts, so the extra 40 watts has to come from the free electrons in the surrounding air. This causes a large amount of positively charged air to be localized to one place. If lightning is then present in the area it will be attracted to that area which is, of course, quite an unsafe situation.
ICOT might have a different explanation though.