PDA

View Full Version : Geocentric Cosmological Axis: why ANYWHERE but here?!



Dunash
2002-May-11, 11:41 PM
With regards to the Relativity site http://www.ezrelativity.tk referred to in another posting, it states “The alternative is: you are still and the world spins. But if that were the case, then you would have the very personal distinction of being situated right on the central axis of cosmological spin -- and that can’t be, because it unjustly excludes other spinning bodies from sharing the distinction. There are too many other clues as well; ...”

By definition, if there WERE a central axis of cosmological spin, objects not on that axis are “excluded,” and this is not a matter of “injustice.” This sudden injection of philosophical
bias, colored by anthropomorphic indignation, utterly discredits the writer as an objective commentator on the matter. He is simply repeating, uncritically, the argument advanced by so many others: if there’s a central axis of rotation, IT’S ANYWHERE BUT HERE! And this,
by philosophical / metaphysical necessity, masquerading as empirical science. The
objection to geocentricity remains philosophical, not physical, and no amount of chit-chat about relativity before and after the above paragraph will raise its claims above that of
pure, metaphysical bias — a bias that, in fact, contradicts the very relativity theory the writer is otherwise discoursing on. (His subsequent chat about angular momentum vectors,using the bicycle tire analogy, is irrelevant. The writer assumes the central cosmological
axis will move with the Earth around the sun to generate resistive forces, whereas
geocentrists keep the Earth and the cosmological axis fixed. The Sun then participates in
the diurnal rotation of the cosmos, with the planets (other than the Earth) being its
satellites. The geocentric hierarchy is thus misrepresented.

Silas
2002-May-12, 01:09 AM
On 2002-05-11 19:41, Dunash wrote:
With regards to the Relativity site http://www.ezrelativity.tk referred to in another posting, it states “The alternative is: you are still and the world spins. But if that were the case, then you would have the very personal distinction of being situated right on the central axis of cosmological spin -- and that can’t be, because it unjustly excludes other spinning bodies from sharing the distinction. There are too many other clues as well; ...”

I think we all agree: that's unfair. A much more proper statement of the problem would be that, since every possible point in all the cosmos has an equal claim to be the center of the cosmic axis, it is staggeringly unlikely that we enjoy that unique position.

It isn't right to say "we can't be at the center of the cosmos." It's only fair to say that "the likelikhood of our being at the center of the cosmos is so close to zero that there is no mathematical expression that can distinguish it from zero."

Happy?

Silas

Karl
2002-May-12, 02:15 AM
On 2002-05-11 21:09, Silas wrote:

It isn't right to say "we can't be at the center of the cosmos." It's only fair to say that "the likelikhood of our being at the center of the cosmos is so close to zero that there is no mathematical expression that can distinguish it from zero."

Happy?

Silas



It is also fair to say that what physical evidence we have, analysis of the Cosmic Background Radiation (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0002/0002044.pdf), indicates that we are moving relative to the sphere of "fixed stars" at a rate approaching 400km/s. (Smoots, et. al., 1977, Physical Review Letters, 39, 898)

Prince
2002-May-13, 08:33 AM
The "Relativity Illuminated" site also errs in:

1. The time for a light signal to travel Eastward and Westward is
DIFFERENT. This is shown every day by the GPS signals.

This is discussed in my paper in Prof AG Kelly's article in Infinite Energy, Vol 39, 2001, p 24-8.

2. The whole discussion on the famous Twin Paradox omits Einstein's
equally famous incorrect analysis in Naturwissenshaft 48, 1918, p 699.

kjavds
2002-May-13, 12:18 PM
On 2002-05-13 04:33, Prince wrote:
The "Relativity Illuminated" site also errs in:

1. The time for a light signal to travel Eastward and Westward is
DIFFERENT. This is shown every day by the GPS signals.

This is discussed in my paper in Prof AG Kelly's article in Infinite Energy, Vol 39, 2001, p 24-8.

2. The whole discussion on the famous Twin Paradox omits Einstein's
equally famous incorrect analysis in Naturwissenshaft 48, 1918, p 699.




Gee, thanks for the feedback! I always like to strive for accuracy. As to #1 of yours, I'd like to see your paper.. where may I? As to your #2, of course, I don't deny that there are more than one possible approaches to explaining away the twin paradox, one could use SR or one could use GR or maybe yet another approach. I chose the one I did for its directness, let's say; aye it's not the last word on the subject. Ok, so let's have more detail on your fault-finding or a link to the erroneous Einstein tract or some meat. Thanks.

Oh and back to your #1 for a minute... when I said that the eastbound and westbound signals transit in precisely equal Earth times, I didn't say GPS time, which is defined by a contrived or variant frame or a compromise thereof. I also didn't mean to imply that mine was in any way a real feasible experiment that has been or could be performed. No, it was just a 'device' to illuminate the topic and constancy of light speed. Tell me more, by all means.


-KJS


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kjavds on 2002-05-13 08:29 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kjavds on 2002-05-13 08:39 ]</font>

kjavds
2002-May-13, 12:24 PM
On 2002-05-11 19:41, Dunash wrote:
With regards to the Relativity site http://www.ezrelativity.tk referred to in another posting, it states “The alternative is: you are still and the world spins. But if that were the case, then you would have the very personal distinction of being situated right on the central axis of cosmological spin -- and that can’t be, because it unjustly excludes other spinning bodies from sharing the distinction. There are too many other clues as well; ...”

By definition, if there WERE a central axis of cosmological spin, objects not on that axis are “excluded,” and this is not a matter of “injustice.” This sudden injection of philosophical
bias, colored by anthropomorphic indignation, utterly discredits the writer as an objective commentator on the matter. He is simply repeating, uncritically, the argument advanced by so many others: if there’s a central axis of rotation, IT’S ANYWHERE BUT HERE! And this,
by philosophical / metaphysical necessity, masquerading as empirical science. The
objection to geocentricity remains philosophical, not physical, and no amount of chit-chat about relativity before and after the above paragraph will raise its claims above that of
pure, metaphysical bias — a bias that, in fact, contradicts the very relativity theory the writer is otherwise discoursing on. (His subsequent chat about angular momentum vectors,using the bicycle tire analogy, is irrelevant. The writer assumes the central cosmological
axis will move with the Earth around the sun to generate resistive forces, whereas
geocentrists keep the Earth and the cosmological axis fixed. The Sun then participates in
the diurnal rotation of the cosmos, with the planets (other than the Earth) being its
satellites. The geocentric hierarchy is thus misrepresented.


Thanks for your attentive feedback, sir. In the passage of mine which you cite I was primarily just trying to say why relativity doesn't "carry over unqualified" to rotating frames. I tossed in what I thought could best support that notion, and I never intended to bare the whole sticky wicket. Aye, it's not the final word on the subject by any means. Tell me more. 'Best if you'd replied to the orig topic so I could of gotten notification of your criticism, thnx.

drvidyardhi
2002-May-16, 09:36 AM
The search for Central axis is very trivial.
Here Cosmology and Vedas help in search beyond 12 Suns and 12 Galaxies surrounded by
Spirals and Sphericals.
The models for Science to advance have been
included through books
The Scientific Essence of Cosmic Philosophy(1999) and Vision of COsmic to PREM- Plasma
Regulated Electromagnetic -Universe (1995)

The space is insufficient to project drawings here. However, ll aspects through
7, 11, 14 and dual mode projections help
this search
vidyardhi nanduri

Prince
2002-May-16, 06:37 PM
A bit off-topic, but since we're talking Ayurvedic Cosmology, how's about this for ancient Ayurvedic weapons technology being developed for use in the coming Apocalyptic Indo-Pak war. All strength to India & Israel for combatting the threat of global Islamism!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1986000/1986595.stm