PDA

View Full Version : Voyager - one in the eye for Geocentrism?



Yorkshireman
2004-Jul-30, 05:31 PM
Yannox, me old mate, old chum, old fruit.

The Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft were launched nearly 27 years ago, and now, both spacecraft are heading out to the stars. Voyager 1 is 9 billion miles from Earth, and Voyager 2 is 7 billion miles.

Now, in a Geostatic scenario, these are also travelling round the World every 24 hours. Which would put their velocities at around 3 times the speed of light.

Can you explain how they reached this speed, because since leaving Earth orbit, they haven't fired their engines for any long periods of time, only for minor course trims, and they had nothing like the capability required to reach this enormous velocity.

Toodle pip

Rob.

gritmonger
2004-Jul-30, 06:17 PM
Easy. The stars, which are further out, whip up the ether into a froth that pulls other objects with them. As Voyager 1 and 2 approach the heavenly firmament, they are getting dragged up to the same speed as the ether flow of that gigantic sphere.

ToSeek
2004-Jul-30, 07:12 PM
I am told that general relativity can explain this, but don't ask me how.

Ut
2004-Jul-30, 09:56 PM
GR can solve anything, including world hunger.

Maksutov
2004-Jul-31, 04:22 AM
I am told that general relativity can explain this, but don't ask me how.

...and sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...

skeptED56
2004-Jul-31, 04:29 AM
...and sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...

Must invest in sheep's bladders...

Yannox
2004-Jul-31, 05:10 AM
Yorkshireman me old china, me old geezer, me old bleeder, me old charlie:

Who can count the amount of times in these postings that these errors by anti-geocentrists are propagated? As Moller's text on Relativity makes clear, the centrifugal, Coriolis and Eulerian forces which are treated as fictitious forces in a non-geocentric context are real, actual forces in a geocentric context. Further, the origin of inertia must be understood properly prior to mounting an analysis. (This is important because one would otherwise misunderstand a helpful analogy: comparing the Voyager to a marble rolling linearly from the center of a spinning merry-go-round to the outer rim. The analogy might lead one to expect centrifugal force to hurl the marble (Voyager) off the merry-go-round -- but in the case of the actual rotating cosmos, the inertial field is FIXED to the aggregate universal mass, while a playground's merry-go-round is ROTATING with respect to that inertial field. Therefore, the Voyager participates in the rotation of the cosmic mass around the earth, but the inertial effects must be scaled to its relative motion "with respect to the distant stars" (often called the "fixed stars" under the influence of Copernican thinking).

Kesh
2004-Jul-31, 09:26 PM
Yannox, paragraph breaks are your friend. #-o

ToSeek
2004-Aug-01, 03:31 AM
I am told that general relativity can explain this, but don't ask me how.

...and sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...

I don't make this stuff up. According to general relativity, any frame of reference is equally valid, including one in which the Earth is fixed and everything rotates around it.

Grey
2004-Aug-01, 03:58 AM
I don't make this stuff up. According to general relativity, any frame of reference is equally valid, including one in which the Earth is fixed and everything rotates around it.
You know, I've been thinking about this for a while. General relativity allows an accelerating frame of reference to be considered as valid as an inertial one. But does it allow a single frame of reference to be undergoing different accelerations? That is, the acceleration I experience is different than the one in Australia, in direction at least. Can both of those be considered a single valid reference frame under general relativity, or would they need to be considered separate reference frames (both of which would be perfectly valid by themselves, of course)?

worzel
2004-Aug-01, 11:58 AM
Who can count the amount of times in these postings that these errors by anti-geocentrists are propagated?

The trouble is, many creationists claim that the Michaelson Morley experiment proves that the earth doesn't move and state that relativity is just plain wrong.

If they believe in a stationary earth in a Newtonian universe (which Dr Neville Jones claims to believe for instance) then they can't very well use relativity to explain why satalites in geostionary orbit don't fall from the sky.

Oyvey
2004-Aug-01, 12:03 PM
Mach can explain the satellite in a geocentric universe without recourse to Relativity.

Can Mach still be right & GR & SR wrong?

Can Mach & SR be right, & GR wrong?

Can Mach & GR be right, & SR wrong.

Can all three be wrong?

milli360
2004-Aug-01, 12:36 PM
I don't make this stuff up. According to general relativity, any frame of reference is equally valid, including one in which the Earth is fixed and everything rotates around it.
You know, I've been thinking about this for a while. General relativity allows an accelerating frame of reference to be considered as valid as an inertial one. But does it allow a single frame of reference to be undergoing different accelerations? That is, the acceleration I experience is different than the one in Australia, in direction at least. Can both of those be considered a single valid reference frame under general relativity, or would they need to be considered separate reference frames (both of which would be perfectly valid by themselves, of course)?
It does indeed allow it, but the interpretation of general relativity is usually local. Complications like you are considering make it almost out of the reach of making sense, so it's avoided, but haven't been disproved. There have been many arguments about this--I think there were international conferences, but they were discontinued, not because they couldn't come to a consensus, but because they were so heated.

Kinda like the BA locking a thread. :)

worzel
2004-Aug-01, 01:43 PM
Mach can explain the satellite in a geocentric universe without recourse to Relativity.
Mach's principle is relativistic in a sense. It is basically a statement of the relativistic principle. It states that it is meaningless to talk about absolute space or a special frame of reference that really is at rest. Exactly the oppsosite to what any proof of geogentricity is trying to establish.

milli360
2004-Aug-01, 02:30 PM
worzel:
Exactly the oppsosite to what any proof of geogentricity is trying to establish.
Not exactly opposite, since it allows geocentricity. I think that's the point.

Bill Dunaway
2004-Aug-01, 02:48 PM
All geocentrists know that NASA is part of the conspiracy to suppress the truth of geocetrism and that all space probes are faked.

worzel
2004-Aug-01, 04:47 PM
worzel:
Exactly the oppsosite to what any proof of geogentricity is trying to establish.
Not exactly opposite, since it allows geocentricity. I think that's the point.
But the very reasoning that allows geocentricity absolutely rules out Geocentricity, doesn't it?

milli360
2004-Aug-01, 05:55 PM
worzel:
Exactly the oppsosite to what any proof of geogentricity is trying to establish.
Not exactly opposite, since it allows geocentricity. I think that's the point.
But the very reasoning that allows geocentricity absolutely rules out Geocentricity, doesn't it?
I know the BA has discussed this, and it is a sensitive subject, but I don't agree. I could be convinced, but I'm not sure that we have the experimental evidence yet. I think it is only by pushing the current "paradigm" to its fullest extent are we going to make progress towards the next one.

What makes it worse is that Geocentrists (see the recent discussion about Neville Jones's paper) are often making simplistic arguments that fly in the face of the data--usually because they have made small errors in their analysis. Rather than check (and re-check) their papers, they throw them up as proof of their position. It hurts their case more than helps.

Grey
2004-Aug-01, 09:48 PM
It does indeed allow it, but the interpretation of general relativity is usually local. Complications like you are considering make it almost out of the reach of making sense, so it's avoided, but haven't been disproved. There have been many arguments about this--I think there were international conferences, but they were discontinued, not because they couldn't come to a consensus, but because they were so heated.

Kinda like the BA locking a thread. :)
Can you direct me to the proceedings or papers from any of these conferences? Most of the works that I've read specifically mention that it's certainly possible to distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration by performing non-local experiments, and many assume this implicitly by never even discussing anything but strictly local reference frames. And I fear that most web searches on typical search terms for this turn up papers and websites by Geocentrism advocates rather than physicists, an I'm not convinced that their understanding of general relativity is complete. :)

Kesh
2004-Aug-01, 09:54 PM
I don't make this stuff up. According to general relativity, any frame of reference is equally valid, including one in which the Earth is fixed and everything rotates around it.

Er, I think this is a vast oversimplification. GR doesn't state "whatever frame I decide upon is valid," it states that from the observer's point of reference the universe appears a certain way.

This means that an astronaut in orbit may percieve that Earth revolves around his spaceship and he's the center of the universe. For some of the math, that could even be a valid starting point. But, from basic knowledge of gravity, we know that it's not the case.

Claiming geocentricity is a "valid theory" because of GR is really twisting the use of the principle. It turns GR into a feel-good philosophy instead of science.

milli360
2004-Aug-02, 01:33 AM
Grey:
Can you direct me to the proceedings or papers from any of these conferences?
I looked into Pais's biography, and this is what I found: "After Einstein, the Mach principle faded but never died. In the post-Einsteinian era of revitalized interest in general relativity, it has become an important topic of research. At GR9, a discussion group debated the issue, in particular what one has to understand by this principle. This question can arouse passion. I am told that the Zeitschrift fur Physik no longer accepts papers on general relativity on the grounds that articles on Mach's principle provoke too many polemical replies." I should have looked that up and copied it the first time. :)

A google on "mach's principle general relativity" seemed fruitful.

ToSeek
2004-Aug-02, 02:47 AM
This means that an astronaut in orbit may percieve that Earth revolves around his spaceship and he's the center of the universe. For some of the math, that could even be a valid starting point. But, from basic knowledge of gravity, we know that it's not the case.

I tried to make a very similar claim on these boards a while back but was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to argue the point and so will not attempt to do so.

Yorkshireman
2004-Aug-02, 09:21 AM
I thought I'd pitch in here as I didn't want it to look like I did a hit-and-run OP. I half-expected that Yannox (me old mucker, etc etc) would have a ready defence of appealing to GR, I was wondering if this argument could be developed in terms of what the inertial and force implications are of that frame of reference.

I concede that GR allows a geostatic frame of reference. It also states it is only one of an infinite number of other equally valid frames of reference.

It's possibly my fault that I just can't get my head round how, if one frame of reference is as valid as any other, what the laws of inertia and force must be in the geostatic frame of reference! There must be some tremendous Earth-tangential force which increases the further from Earth you get.

Or do you by necessity, have to appeal to the luminiferous aether?

Maksutov
2004-Aug-02, 09:57 AM
I am told that general relativity can explain this, but don't ask me how.

...and sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...

I don't make this stuff up. According to general relativity, any frame of reference is equally valid, including one in which the Earth is fixed and everything rotates around it.

I wasn't questioning your reference. As always it was a good one. :)

Instead what I was questioning was either the aspect of GR or interpretations of GR that would allow for stars to revolve around the Earth at faster-than-light speeds.

worzel
2004-Aug-02, 12:34 PM
worzel:
Exactly the oppsosite to what any proof of geogentricity is trying to establish.
Not exactly opposite, since it allows geocentricity. I think that's the point.
But the very reasoning that allows geocentricity absolutely rules out Geocentricity, doesn't it?
I know the BA has discussed this, and it is a sensitive subject, but I don't agree. I could be convinced, but I'm not sure that we have the experimental evidence yet. I think it is only by pushing the current "paradigm" to its fullest extent are we going to make progress towards the next one.
I'm not really too sure exactly what Mach's Principle actually means. As far asI can tell it is not a theory but just a statement about what we can and can't know. It seems at variance with Newtonian mechanics but not with relativity so I don't see how one can quote it in support of any argument without accepting relativity.


What makes it worse is that Geocentrists (see the recent discussion about Neville Jones's paper) are often making simplistic arguments that fly in the face of the data--usually because they have made small errors in their analysis. Rather than check (and re-check) their papers, they throw them up as proof of their position. It hurts their case more than helps.
Totally agree. They eventually lose the argument in the detail when most of their supporters have switched off and are left with a feeling that the science is debatable when the truth is it was totally debunked.