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

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

August 12 2017, 12:00 AM 









"OK, LOTs of other issues in the previous posts, but just to address one
for no: "AAF: because the earth is rotating, the city of Brisbane must receive photons
from the star Sigma Octantis, each moment, from a different direction"."






That is true.




happy.gif




Because the earth is rotating, the city of Brisbane,
at Latitude 27.4698° S, must receive photons from
the star Sigma Octantis, each moment,
from a different direction.


And so, you just can't say no, nor you can justify saying no,
to such a scientifically valid and solid statement;
can you?





[linked image]










 
 
AAF

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

August 14 2017, 12:00 AM 










"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."








That is okay!




wink.gif




But, please, notice and , kindly, accept the following implications
of seeing S_1, by Alice on Einstein's S_2, in the same way as seeing
the star Sigma Octantis, by observers in Brisbane:


A. The star Sigma Octantis shows
a tiny, but measurable, amount of parallax, due to the daily rotation
of Brisbane around the rotational axis of the earth. And therefore,
Einstein's S_1 must show as well, a tiny, but measurable, amount
of parallax, due to the rotation of Einstein's S_2
around its rotational axis.


B. The star Sigma Octantis shows
a small, but measurable, amount of light aberration, due to the daily rotation
of Brisbane around the rotational axis of the earth. And in the same way,
Einstein's S_1 must show as well, a small, but measurable, amount of light
aberration due to the rotation of Einstein's S_2 around
its rotational axis.


C. A gyroscope with its rapidly spinning wheel
pointing to the star Sigma Octantis, in the city Brisbane, appears
to make a circle of 360 degrees relative to that star everyday. And similarly,
the rapidly spinning wheel of a gyroscope , on Einstein's S_2, and pointing to
Einstein's S_1 must appear to make a circle of 360 degrees relative to
Einstein's S_1 every rotational period of Einstein's S_2.






[linked image]


















 
 
AAF

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

August 16 2017, 12:00 AM 









"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."








Of course, as seen from Brisbane,
the star Sigma Octantis
is ALWAYS due south.


Nobody, here, is denying that!



wink.gif



But - and read very carefully please – the direction of 'SOUTH' itself,
as reckoned from Brisbane, is always about 27.4698 degrees
above the horizon.


Why is that?


It's because the city of Brisbane is at
Latitude 27.4698° S.


It's as simple as that!





happy.gif













 
 
AAF

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

August 18 2017, 12:00 AM 









"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 does matter quite
a bit!




wink.gif




The star Sigma Octantis, as observed from the Australian city
of Brisbane, is always about about 27.4698 degrees
above the horizon.


Furthermore, the star Sigma Octantis, as seen from Brisbane, makes
everyday a small circle around a fixed point in the sky, due to the rotation
of Brisbane city around the rotational axis of the earth.


It's that clear and simple!





happy.gif















 
 
AAF

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

August 20 2017, 12:00 AM 











Ah . . .


This Aussie eclipse chaser reminds me of Colleague Ufonaut99:,
out in the bush, chasing the Delta Scuti variable
called 'Sigma Octantis':

https://cdn1.pri.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_image/public/Terry%20Cuttle%20TSE%202010%20Anaa%20French%20Polynesia_0.jpg?itok=2EGGZkDG

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-08-16/aussie-eclipse-chaser-heads-idaho-16th-eclipse






[linked image]





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






"- it simply does NOT, and so simply highlights that your arguments
lack consistency or basic regards for facts."








It does!




wink.gif




I've explained to you, already, that the star Sigma Octantis,
as seen from the northern Australian city of Brisbane, is always
rotating in a small circle, in the sky, about
27.4698 degrees above the horizon.


Is the star Sigma Octantis
always due south?


Absolutely . . .


By how many degrees, above the horizon, is the star Sigma Octantis,
as observed from the city of Sydney?


The the star Sigma Octantis, as seen by observers in the city of Sydney,
is always about 33.8688 degrees over the southern horizon.


Why?


It's because the city of Sydney is at Latitude 33.8688° S.


It can't be made more less complicated
than that!






happy.gif




















 
 
AAF

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

August 22 2017, 12:00 AM 













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










'Coriolis force' sounds a little bit more
esoteric & mysterious!




wink.gif




Let's analyze it using the simple notions
of rotation & tangential velocity.


As pointed out, earlier in this thread, the tangential velocity, v ,
varies directly with the cosine of the geographical latitude
in accordance with the following equation:


v = v0 x cos(L)


where L is the angle of the geographical latitude;
and v0 is the maximum tangential velocity
at the equator.


From the above equation, we can conclude, immediately,
that any kind of projectiles such as - bullets, rockets,
bombs, rocks, air molecules, . . . and so on - will
always be shifted in the forward direction, if it's fired
from the equator towards targets in the north
or targets in the south.


And at the same time, any projectile will always be shifted
in the backward direction, if it's fired from from the north
or from the south towards the equator.


In other words, projectiles, fired from lower latitudes towards
higher latitudes, have, always, greater velocity resultants
and more amounts of kinetic energy.


While, by contrast, projectiles, fired from higher latitudes towards
lower latitudes, have, always, smaller velocity resultants and
less amounts of kinetic energy.


And that is just one more nail in the 'coffin' of
Einstein's hypothesis about relative rotation;
isn't it?






happy.gif















 
 
AAF

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

August 24 2017, 12:00 AM 











""AAF: In the wake of cyclone Debbie, a bull shark has been found washed
up in the south Brisbane suburb of Logan." Thanks for that; I hadn't heard of that one.
With all the movies being made around here, looks like we're cut out
for doing the next Sharknado!"








YEP . . .




SHARKNADOS are quite possible!




wink.gif




But how many people do sharks kill in Australia each year?


Take a closer look:


"Shark attacks are so infrequent that you are far more likely to be
accidentally suffocated or strangulated in bed (eight deaths in 2014),
or die from a fall involving a chair (26 deaths in 2014)"
:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/10/how-many-people-do-sharks-kill-australia-each-year





happy.gif














 
 
Ufonaut99

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

August 31 2017, 10:07 AM 

Hi AAF happy.gif,

Ah . . . This Aussie eclipse chaser reminds me of Colleague Ufonaut99:,
Perhaps in more ways than one ! This (other) Aussie Eclipse Chaser has been happily screen-free away, including being in St Joseph, Missouri on August 21st happy.gif Unfortunately, 1pm was a time of rain and solid cloud, but it was still awesome seeing the sky become as night !
65340.jpg

Still, some other guys had it better - very impressed that they got not only the space station, but the shadow bands as well :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4


AAF: his case has, at last & finally, run out of gas, completely

Well, we'll never agree wink.gif, so let's finish up with a couple of clear differences between us; Anyone who thinks, as you do, that :
a) Sigma Octantis (aka "Polaris Australis") as seen from Brisbane, "is ALWAYS due south .... But, at the same time, [it] makes, in the southern sky, a daily CIRCLE: One end of its diameter is over Hobart And the other end of its diameter is above Perth " due WEST !

and/or

b) That in this video "things, in the background, are swinging back and forth all time. " meaning the camera is rotating in HALF-circles
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-11630222-stock-footage-lovely-child-playing-at-playground-boy-rotating-parents-watching.html

will likely agree that you are correct.

On the other hand, those who agree with me that the above claims (amongst SO many others wink.gif ) are blatant nonsense, will therefore likewise see no merit in the arguments against Einstein.

'nuff said Two thumbs up

 
 
AAF

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

September 1 2017, 12:00 AM 












""Ah . . . This Aussie eclipse chaser reminds me of Colleague Ufonaut99". Perhaps in more ways than one! This (other) Aussie Eclipse Chaser has been happily screen-free away, including being in St Joseph, Missouri on August 21. Unfortunately, 1pm was a time of rain and solid cloud, but it was still awesome seeing the sky become as nigh!

[linked image]

Still, some other guys had it better - very impressed that they got not only the space station, but the shadow bands as well:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4











Hi; Ufonaut99:



Ah . . .


I see . . .


So the 'rain and solid cloud' had decided that nobody
would see Venus, at noon, from here,
in this part of Missouri:

https://explorestlouis.com/discover/2017-total-solar-eclipse/


I'm, somewhat, tempted to assume that was some form of creative
punishment, from 'upstairs', for choosing that P--D.J.T--loving state
over the birthplace of Terri Irwin,
the great freedom-loving state of Oregon:

https://twitter.com/terriirwin/status/390239996377968641?lang=en



Do you have any disagreement with that hunch?






happy.gif
















 
 
AAF

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

September 7 2017, 12:00 AM 










""AAF: his case has, at last & finally, run out of gas, completely."
Well, we'll never agree so let's finish up with a couple of clear differences
between us; Anyone who thinks, as you do, that: a) Sigma Octantis (aka "Polaris
Australis") as seen from Brisbane, "is ALWAYS due south .... But, at the same time,
[it] makes, in the southern sky, a daily CIRCLE: One end of its diameter is over
Hobart And the other end of its diameter is above Perth " due WEST!"









Well . . .


I could be wrong . . .


It seems there is still
some of gas left!




wink.gif




O.K. . . .


Let me try, one more time, to explain how it's possible for the star
Polaris Australis to be along the Brisbane-Hobart Line, at
one time, & along the Brisbane-Perth Line, at another time.


First of all, the earth is a sphere.


Take a closer look:


[linked image]

http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/LongitudeIntro.html



That means, it's possible for the two lines coming from Brisbane to Hobart
& Perth to be much closer, to each other, than they look on a flat map;
right?


Now; what are the latitude & longitude of Brisbane?


The latitude & longitude of Brisbane: are: 27.4698° S, & 153.0251° E


What are the latitude & longitude of Hobart?


The latitude & longitude of Hobart are 42.8821° S, 147.3272° E.


What are the latitude & longitude of Perth?


The latitude & longitude of Perth are 31.9505° S, 115.8605° E


Notice that Brisbane's longitude – Perth's longitude = 37.1646°
& that means, due to the curvature of Earth's surface, with respect to Brisbane,
Perth, itself, is, actually, under the horizon.


Being under the horizon means getting its line, from Brisbane, closer to the line,
from Brisbane to Hobart; because, though displaced to the west, Hobart is still
above the horizon, with respect to the city of Brisbane;
correct?


So, now, please, remember this:

As seen from Brisbane, the star Polaris Australis is above Hobart
& above Rio de Janeiro, at the same time.



happy.gif



It's, therefore, possible for the relativity small circle, made by the star Polaris
Australis
above the horizon by about 27.4698° as seen for the city Brisbane, to have
one end of its diameter over Hobart & the other end over Perth.
















    
This message has been edited by AAF24 on Sep 7, 2017 12:30 AM


 
 
AAF

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

September 11 2017, 12:07 AM 










"and/or b) That in this video "things, in the background, are swinging
back and forth all time. " meaning the camera is rotating in HALF-circles
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-11630222-stock-footage-lovely-child-playing-at-playground-boy-rotating-parents-watching.html
will likely agree that you are correct."









Good . . .



happy.gif




Now, it seems, you agree that "things, in the background, are swinging
back and forth all time"
; or more precisely., they appear from
the right-hand side & disappear from the left-hand side.


But you still reject as non-sequitur the obvious conclusion that the recording
camera must be rotating by about a half circle around its axis.


& that is good too . . .


Because it would make almost everyone think that Colleague AAF
got it right, but Colleague Ufonaut99 got none of it.


I presume!




wink.gif














 
 
Ufonaut99

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

September 13 2017, 8:42 AM 

Hi AAF,

AAF: Now, it seems, you agree that "things, in the background, are swinging back and forth all time"

Clearly not.

AAF: or more precisely, they appear from the right-hand side & disappear from the left-hand side.

Leaving aside from your ... shall we say, unique wink.gif ... definition of "back and forth", it's remains plainly and obviously ridiculous to claim that the video was made by a camera that was rotating on it's axis in half-circles - almost as ridiculous as saying that an object that "appears, always, at the right-hand side & disappears at the left-hand side" is a counter-argument for objects "NEVER moving across the screen left-to-right" wink.gif

In other news, the residents of Brisbane awoke this-morning utterly un-amazed to find that the SOUTHern Pole-Star (aka Sigma Octantis or Polaris Australis) was still to be seen due SOUTH (not West) of them, as indeed it had been throughout the previous day, and in fact every day before that.

 
 
AAF

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

September 17 2017, 12:00 AM 









Hi; Ufonaut99:



Believe it or not; the star Sigma Octantis (a.k.a. Polaris Australis),
as observed from the city of Brisbane, is revolving in a daily circle,
one end of its angular diameter is above Hobart [42.8821° S, 147.3272° E];
and the other end of its angular diameter is above
Patagonia [41.8101° S, 68.9063° W]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia






[linked image]






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






"On the other hand, those who agree with me that the above claims (amongst SO many others) are blatant nonsense,
will therefore likewise see no merit in the arguments against Einstein. nuff said "

[linked image]










Well . . .


Let them think for
themselves!



wink.gif




However, there should be no doubt, in the mind of anybody, that Einstein's idea
about the relative axial rotation between the fluid body S_1 & the fluid
body S_2 was born dead.


It is just physically impossible, for any observer, to see the relative
axial rotation of any external body, simply because relative
axial rotation does not exist.


And so, any object observed to be rotating around its axis, its axial
rotation is, always, real.


Albert Einstein, therefore,
got it all wrong.


There is, absolutely, no shred
of a doubt about that!




happy.gif

















 
 
AAF

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

September 23 2017, 12:00 AM 










""AAF: Now, it seems, you agree that "things, in the background,
are swinging back and forth all time" Clearly not. "







Ah . . .



There you go again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w




wink.gif




So, you're going back to your 'old' assertion that there is no swinging back & forth
nor moving from the right-hand side of the screen to the left-hand side
of the same screen, in the video, under discussion.


Would you, please, describe, one more time, in your own words, how things, in the background,
are moving around in this video:


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






happy.gif












 
 
AAF

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

September 29 2017, 12:00 AM 









"No - even apart from anything else, the idea that "light travels at c
relative to it's source" got pretty well discredited by wave theory long before the advent
of Quantum Mechanics, and there's never been any credible reason to bring it back":


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1506062824/2/The+Most+Obvious+Refutation+of+Einstein%27s+relativity







That's BIG news to me . . .


I've just discovered, by chance, that Colleague Ufonaut99 can't tell
the difference between Newton's ballistic speed of light and
Maxwell's relative speed of light!



[linked image]





What about the speed of light relative to a stationary light source?




O.K. . . .


Here is the main difference between
the two kinds of speed:


According to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, the speed of light, relative
to its moving source, is, always, equal to (c – v), if the light source and
the emitted light are moving, together, in the same direction.


And also, according to Maxwell's theory, as well, the speed of light, relative to its
moving source, is, always, equal to (c + v), if the light source and the emitted
light are moving, directly, in the opposite direction to each other.


That is on one hand.


On the other hand, according to Newton's corpuscular theory of light, the ballistic speed
of light is, always, equal to (c + v), if the light source and the emitted
light are moving, together, in the same direction.


And also, of course, according to Newton's theory, as well, the ballistic speed of light
is, always, equal to (c – v), if the light source and the emitted light
are moving, directly, in the opposite direction to each other..


And so, the speed of light relative to its moving source is, always,
equal to (c), only in Newton's corpuscular theory of light.


Is this clear?


The speed of light relative to its moving source, according to Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory of light, can never, ever, be equal to (c).


It's that simple!




happy.gif


















 
 
AAF

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

October 5 2017, 12:00 AM 









Hi; Ufonaut99:



Einstein asserted, time & time again, that the speed of light, relative
to its moving source, is, always, equal, exactly & precisely,
to c; i.e., 299792458 m/s.


Do you dare, NOW, to disagree, even slightly,
with Herr Einstein
on that?





[linked image]




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





""AAF: or more precisely, they appear from the right-hand
side & disappear from the left-hand side." Leaving aside from your ...
shall we say, unique ... definition of "back and forth""
.






Quite unique . . .



wink.gif



& original . . .


& very precise too . . .


& nobody can, reasonably, justify having
the slightest doubt about that!





happy.gif














 
 
Ufonaut99

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

October 5 2017, 8:44 AM 

Hi AAF, happy.gif

Ufonaut99: even apart from anything else, the idea that "light travels at c relative to it's source" got pretty well discredited by wave theory long before the advent of Quantum Mechanics

AAF: the speed of light relative to its moving source is, always, equal to (c), only in Newton's corpuscular theory of light
...
Einstein asserted, time & time again, that the speed of light, relative to its moving source, is, always, equal, exactly & precisely, to c; i.e., 299792458 m/s.

Do you dare, NOW, to disagree, even slightly, with Herr Einstein on that?

Mea Culpa ! Shy Whistler

Roger and I were of course discussing theories of light pre-Einstein when he first used that phrase "light travels at c relative to it's source", referring to (as per your previous post) Newtonian theory as opposed to Wave theories such as Maxwell's; Naturally I copied/pasted in that same vein.
Not sure how you got from my saying "Newton's corpuscular theory of light got pretty well discredited by wave theory such as Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light long before the advent of Quantum Mechanics" to declaring that "[I] can't tell the difference between [the two], but ah well ....

AAF: you're going back to your 'old' assertion that there is no swinging back & forth nor moving from the right-hand side of the screen to the left-hand side
of the same screen, in the video, under discussion.

Not "going back", but simply what I have always said : everybody can see there's always a smooth right-to-left motion with no change of direction.
Obviously nothing like what you'd get from a camera doing half-circles happy.gif

 
 
AAF

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

October 7 2017, 12:00 AM 











Hi; Ufonaut99:



I would not assume that you leaf through
the 'Brisbane Times'
everyday:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/nsw/stephen-paddocks-girlfriend-marilou-danley-was-nervous-and-jittery-around-him-20171007-gyw6o0.html




[linked image]




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





"even apart from anything else, the idea that "light travels at c
relative to its source" got pretty well discredited by wave theory long before the advent of
Quantum Mechanics".







Oh . . .


Yeah?



wink.gif




What are you going to say about the speed of light relative
to its stationary source?


Surely, the speed of light, in the reference frame of its stationary source
is, always, equal to c, according to every physical theory,
you can think of, in this particular field.


Am I right?



happy.gif



And furthermore, it turns out, in the end, that the speed of light,
in the reference frame of its source is , always, equal to c,
regardless of whether that source is stationary OR not.


Even Herr Einstein was forced, in spite of himself, by Michelson
and (his only true pal) Morley, to put it as an axiom
right on the very top of his special theory.


Unfortunately, for his special theory in the long run, however,
Herr Einstein went too far in that direction and, wrongly,
assumed that the speed of light, in the reference frame of every
observer, is , always, equal to c, as well, and regardless
of whether that observer is moving OR not.


And that was, undeniably, a very BIG and costly mistake,
on his part.




















    
This message has been edited by AAF24 on Oct 7, 2017 12:23 AM


 
 
roger

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

October 7 2017, 3:42 AM 

>>Unfortunately, for his special theory in the long run, however, Herr Einstein went too far in that direction and, wrongly, assumed that the speed of light, in the reference frame of every observer, is , always, equal to c, as well, and regardless of whether that observer is moving OR not. And that was, undeniably, a very BIG and costly mistake, on his part.

Yeah, and then those who come after Einstein, such as Brian Greene then adjust measurements of distance and time intervals to keep c constant:

Brian Greene: "Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html

 
 
AAF

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

October 9 2017, 12:02 AM 









"Yeah, and then those who come after Einstein, such as Brian Greene then
adjust measurements of distance and time intervals to keep c constant: Brian Greene: "Space and
time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield
the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity":"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html








Thank you, Roger, very much
for your comment.


Yeah; me, too, used to think about it, in the same way,
just like Brian Greene, because I thought that Einstein
had the freedom to adjust the meter and the second,
all the way, in order to make the speed of light,
always, equal to c.


But it turns out, in the end, that Einstein was being handcuffed
by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz & his 'good-for-so-little'
transformation!




happy.gif




Anyway, it's true, in principle, that measurements of distance and time
intervals can be adjusted to keep c constant.


However, due to the historical fact that the Lorentz transformation, which
has been based, from the start, upon the Fitzgerald-contraction hypothesis,
Einstein's special relativity is capable of adjusting measurements of
distance and time intervals, to keep c constant
ONLY in the case of effects less than or equal to
the speed ratio [v2/c2].


In short, it is not possible, at all, within the framework of Einstein's
special relativity, to just go ahead and adjust measurements of distance
and time intervals to keep c constant, in all the cases, in which
the effect, in question, is greater than the speed ratio [v2/c2],
such as, for example, the Doppler effect
and stellar aberration.


















 
 
 
< Previous Page 117 18 19 20 21 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement