<< 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











 
 
AAF

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

July 25 2017, 12:00 AM 











"Yes, all your arguments in this thread (including the Oslo, Gothemburg,
the restaurant and the observatory) are all as equally valid
as your take on this one!"






Thanks a lot!



happy.gif




I, only, hope, it's real & NOT just some 'imported'
OR 'copy-cat' kind of this sort of Trumpian Sarcasm:


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/times-donald-trump-sarcastic-misinterpreted/story?id=41328374




wink.gif















 
 
AAF

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

July 27 2017, 12:00 AM 








“Dishonesty correlates
with high IQ"
:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1501055910/last-1501114322/Floating+Water+Bridge+and+Crimestop


Interesting!



[linked image]




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





"" 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!

[linked image]
Of course, even normal koalas are fighters:
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/25/17/47/brawling-http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/25/17/47/brawling-koalas-narrowly-dodge-oncoming-truck-on-victorian-roadkoalas-http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/25/17/47/brawling-koalas-narrowly-dodge-oncoming-truck-on-victorian-roadnarrowly-dodge-oncoming-truck-on-victorian-road "






Nice picture!


wink.gif



You can't see 'much similarity between a Koala and a rabbit,
other than they're both cuddly'
?


Well . . .


Being so cuddly for 'a Koala & a rabbit
is more than enough.


The whole point of having either of them in your home
is to have a cuddly pet at your disposal
there all the time;
right?



happy.gif










 
 
AAF

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

July 29 2017, 12:00 AM 










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






Me too . . .




happy.gif




I'm so glad that I can, now, keep this fabulous thread about that
outrageously fictional hypothesis, by physics' big kahuna
Albert Einstein, going & going & going
well into the month of August!






[linked image]


















 
 
AAF

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

July 31 2017, 12:00 AM 










""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."









Well; I would not say 'YEP'
to that.



happy.gif



So, let's just relax & let the big Kahuna
speak for himself!




wink.gif




Here's, once again, Einstein's scenario:

"Let two fluid bodies of equal kind and magnitude swim freely in space at such a great
distance from one another (and from all other masses) that only that sort of gravitational
forces are to be taken into account which the parts of any of these bodies exert upon each
other. The distance of the bodies from one another is invariable. The relative motion of the
different parts of each body is not to occur. But each mass is seen to rotate by an observer
at rest relative to the other mass round the connecting line of the masses with a constant
angular velocity (definite relative motion for both the masses). Now let us think that the
surfaces of both the bodies (S_1 and S_2) are measured with the help of measuring rods
(relatively at rest); it is then found that the surface of S_1 is a sphere and the surface
of the other is an ellipsoid of rotation. We now ask, why is this difference between the two
bodies? An answer to this question can only then be regarded as satisfactory from the
epistemological standpoint when the thing adduced as the cause is an observable fact of
experience. The law of causality has the sense of a definite statement about the world
of experience only when observable facts alone appear as causes and effects."
:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity






[linked image]




















 
 
AAF

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

August 2 2017, 12:00 AM 










"Nor is it about the "inability of observers", nor is he claiming there
is only one single effect of rotation/acceleration."








Do you read, very carefully, the scenario of the big kahuna
Albert Einstein in the previous post?




wink.gif




It's all about the "inability of observers" to find out
by observational and experimental means which of the two bodies
(S_1 and S_2) is doing the actual rotation.


But, obviously, the big kahuna Albert Einstein was,
demonstrably & completely, wrong.


Because it is not just the ellipsoid of rotation, which one must
come up with a satisfactory explanation for; but also a whole host
of other phenomena related to axial rotation and
rotational movement in general.


And I hope you will consider re-evaluating your position
on that hideous and grave mistake of Albert Einstein
one more time!





happy.gif


















 
 
AAF

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

August 4 2017, 12:00 AM 









"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."








I've already pointed out to you that hideous and grave mistake
of Albert Einstein!




wink.gif





For it's clear that poor & old guru of yours failed miserably,
in his 1916 paper, to take into account a whole host of numerous
phenomena related to axial rotation and rotational movement generally;
among which parallax, light aberration, the clockwise rotating winds of
cyclones, the counter-clockwise rotating winds of hurricanes, gyroscopes,
and Foucault's Pendulum, to mention just few,
are, by far, the most important.


Certainly, I hope you will look at your position concerning that
hideous and grave mistake of Albert Einstein
for the second time!





happy.gif

















 
 
AAF

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

August 6 2017, 12:00 AM 










""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."






Wait a minute;
mate:

https://twitter.com/welbeast/status/886551071493148672?lang=en



wink.gif




It's either relative OR 'one observer feeling effects
of acceleration
; but, certainly, not both
at the same time.


However, it's, abundantly, clear that the latter is the real thing;
and the former is bogus.


There is not one shred of a doubt
about it!





happy.gif













 
 
Anonym

You were right

August 6 2017, 9:31 AM 


 
 
Anonymous

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

August 6 2017, 6:10 PM 

12,241,922 views!!!
happy.gif

 
 
AAF

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

August 8 2017, 12:00 AM 











Many thanks;
Anonymous & Anonym:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-euum5B7SE




[linked image]




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





"That means ALL the effects (such as deformation into ellipsoid of
rotation, movement of Foucault's Pendulum, cyclones *, etc, etc, etc)."







Of course . . .



wink.gif




ALL the effects (such as deformation into ellipsoid of rotation,
movement of Foucault's Pendulum, cyclones *, etc, etc, etc)

demonstrate, quite clearly, that axial rotation is absolute; and
that Einstein's hypothesis about relative rotation
is in a big trouble.


Since all those outstanding effects are at the observer's disposal,
at all times, to determine, exactly, which of the two bodies
is doing the rotation, and which is not.


It's as simple
as that!




happy.gif















 
 
AAF

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

August 10 2017, 12:00 AM 










Hi; Ufonaut99:



Do you bet on shooting down, immediately & right away,
Kim Jong-un's 4 rockets, in international waters,
by this very smart & tough GUY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p1JIgTuKQk




[linked image]





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






"That is the starting point of Einstein's scenario,
not the answer to it."






ALL of the effects (such as deformation into ellipsoid of rotation,
movement of Foucault's Pendulum, cyclones *, etc, etc, etc)
are
necessary and integral parts of the strong & powerful MACHINE
needed for a powerful and strong rebuttal of Einstein's shaky and
ill-founded hypothesis about relative rotation.


And make no mistake about it!



wink.gif



That powerful and strong rebuttal of Einstein's baseless notion,
about relative rotation, is working.




happy.gif













 
 
 
< Previous Page 115 16 17 18 19 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement