<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 9 2017, 12:00 AM 









""AAF: And that, necessarily, implies that Albert Einstein did not
understand the absolute CHARACTERISTIC of rotation at all. Am I right?"
We discussed evidence of absolute rotation before, and you NEVER mentioned
wind direction (you only ever mentioned Foucault's Pendulum)"








Well; I couldn't, possibly, have mentioned it, before
Cyclone Debbie was born;
could I?



wink.gif



However, the clockwise rotation of Cyclone Debbie's winds demonstrates,
quite clearly, that Albert Einstein's hypothesis about relative rotation
and the inability of observers to find out, experimentally,
whether Einstein's S_1 or his S_2 is, actually, rotating, is,
absolutely & unequivocally, false.


That is because observers, here on Earth, are not just able to find out
that the earth is, actually, rotating; but also, are more than able to
determine, with absolute certainty, which of the two hemispheres of Earth
they are in, by merely observing the rotating winds
of cyclones and hurricanes.


Is that very clear, now?


I hope so!




happy.gif














 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 11 2017, 12:00 AM 









"- so your own logic necessarily implies that it is YOU that, up until
this moment, never learnt/understood this characteristic of rotation."








I've told you, already, that I couldn't, possibly,
have mentioned it, before the birth
of Cyclone Debbie.


In other words, Cyclone Debbie, in this case,
was a necessary trigger.


It's as simple as that!



wink.gif



Do you recall that Einstein, in his 1916 paper, stated that
deviations of rotating bodies from their spherical shapes, in
the non-rotating case, can be attributed to the effect of
distant matter?


Well; let his fans, now, try to explain away the clockwise
rotating winds of Cyclone Debbie by the supposedly
measurable effects of faraway matter.


They can't;
can they?


Their task is, absolutely, impossible.




happy.gif















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 13 2017, 12:00 AM 









"As for it being right, I will agree that it is fully consistent
with how right (or not!)"






I'm, certainly, on the right track,
in this particular case.


The cyclones of the southern hemisphere
rotate clockwise.


While the hurricanes of the northern hemisphere, always,
rotate counterclockwise.


And this means, necessarily, that observers are able to find out
on which of the two hemispheres of a rotating body are located;
and that rotation, in general, is, by no means, relative.


And that is all!




happy.gif









 
 
Ufonaut99

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 14 2017, 3:45 AM 

Hi AAF, happy.gif

AAF: I assume that koalas are the native rabbits of the continent of Australia


Well, offhand, I can't see much similarity between a Koala and a rabbit, other than they're both cuddly ! (although I suspect Aussie farmers would choose other adjectives for rabbits !)
But whatever you do, NEVER mistake a cute Koala and a dropbear ! wink.gif
03c83e112c694bea597ef3179b9b53ae.jpg
Of course, even normal koalas are fighters :http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/25/17/47/brawling-koalas-narrowly-dodge-oncoming-truck-on-victorian-road

Well, I've been busy for a while, but glad to see you've almost caught up happy.gif

AAF: inability of observers .... observers, here on Earth .... I'm, certainly, on the right track,

Of course observers here on earth can tell rotation, but Einstein's scenario is explicitly about the bodies S_1 and S_2 ONLY, not Earth.
Nor is it about the "inability of observers", nor is he claiming there is only one single effect of rotation/acceleration.
So I'm not sure what track you're on, but it sure doesn't look like it's one that has anything to do with what Einstein is addressing wink.gif

AAF: rotation, in general, is, by no means, relative

Rotation is always relative - and will also always involve at least one observer feeling effects of acceleration. That means ALL the effects (such as deformation into ellipsoid of rotation, movement of Foucaults Pendulum, cyclones *, etc, etc, etc).
That is the starting point of Einstein's scenario, not the answer to it.

OK, LOTs of other issues in the previous posts, but just to address one for now :
AAF: because the earth is rotating, the city of Brisbane must receive photons from the star Sigma Octantis, each moment, from a different direction;

First off, I'm glad we agree that Alice will see S_1 just the same as an observer in Brisbane sees Sigma Octantis "The Southern Pole Star" - since by definition both are positioned along their respective host body's axis of rotation.
Being in Brisbane, I can tell you that I have seen Sigma Octantis in the morning and in the evening, and it is ALWAYS due south - just as you are happy to admit that Polaris "The Northern Pole Star" is always due North, even though the same argument quoted would apply to it.

So it really doesn't matter what line of reasoning you employ to justify that Sigma Octantis (and therefore S_1) should be seen moving in the sky - it simply does NOT, and so simply highlights that your arguments lack consistency or basic regards for facts. Whistling

(*) the cyclone's rotation being due to the centrifugal and coriolis inertial forces, and inertia being the subject of Mach's principle)

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 15 2017, 12:00 AM 











Hi, Ufonaut99:



Take a look at the Ambitious Son
of Proud Queensland:


http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-just-suggested-julian-assange-should-run-us-russia-cyber-security-633954





[linked image]





…........................................................................................................................................................................





"all your statements and arguments in this thread have been - such as
this one: AAF: "I assume that the camera, in that video, is either rotating around its axis
a half circle to follow the little boy; OR somebody keeps holding it with both hands and keeps
pointing it towards that little boy. Either way, the camera is effectively
on Terra firma. ... ""






The above 'fabulous' statement
of mine is correct!



wink.gif



And there is nothing wrong, at all, with it.


The camera, in question, is nowhere on that
'tiny' merry-go-round.


It's very clear & simple!





happy.gif











 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 17 2017, 12:00 AM 









""But, nonetheless, the rotating background, in that video, is, most
certainly, due to the rotation of the camera.""

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-11630222-stock-footage-lovely-child-playing-at-playground-boy-rotating-parents-watching.html






Once again, the above 'fabulous' statement
of mine is, also, correct!



wink.gif



And there is nothing wrong
with it at all.


It's, certainly, true that the rotating background, in that video,
is due to the rotation of the camera.


That is simple & clear!



happy.gif









 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 19 2017, 12:00 AM 









"So you reckon a camera positioned off the merry-go-round on terra-
firma, and panning across back-and-forth (left-to-right and right-to-left) in HALF-circles
on it's axis, will result in this video that clearly shows: - The background clearly
making FULL-circle revolutions".






Nothing is making FULL-circle revolutions in that video,
except the little kid & his 'tiny' merry-go-round!




wink.gif




And it's, certainly, impossible for the trees and surrounding stuff,
in the background, to come between the camera & the merry-go-round,
in order to clearly make FULL-circle revolutions.


It's as simple as that!




happy.gif
















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 21 2017, 12:00 AM 










"- The background NEVER moving across
the screen left-to-right".







Well; just take a closer look the Man
in the Black Suit:

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-11630222-stock-footage-lovely-child-playing-at-playground-boy-rotating-parents-watching.html&id1=A100532541j2pdt4qwe0001hwk02z1o%7C24913458000092%7C9999%7C0%7C0%7Cshutter


You see. . .




wink.gif




The Man in the Black Suit, in that video, appears, always,
at the right-hand side & disappears
at the left-hand side.


Am I correct?




happy.gif













 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

July 23 2017, 12:00 AM 










"- The merry-go-round itself never moving across the screen
at all, despite the camera panning across it".






It's, certainly, true that the axis, around which the merry-go-round
is spinning, is stationary all the time.


But the rest of that merry-go-round is, constantly, moving across the
screen & making a whole circle.


While, by contrast, everything, in the background, can make no more
than one half of a circle.


Do find that demonstrably true?


I hope so . . .





happy.gif











 
 
 
< Previous Page 114 15 16 17 18 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement