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

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

May 19 2016 at 3:17 PM
Anonymous 

 




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160518120254.htm






 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Heisenberg "top of iceberg

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

May 20 2016, 8:52 AM 

[linked image]
I agree...

 
 
Anonymous

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

May 20 2016, 2:50 PM 


 
 
AAF

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

May 21 2016, 12:00 AM 











"As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her
telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the
stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist,
would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we
assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered
as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are
rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes
the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's
expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane
of the pendulum moves together with the river of space. "







No; Mr. Einstein was NOT right:
Rotational motion is not relative!


wink.gif



Why should "the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe"
be so unbelievably CHOOSY & PICKY?


What is the BIG REASON behind choosing one single 'miserable'
lonely pendulum on the North Pole, by "the rotating mass of the observable
part of the universe"
, to rotate with it; and leaving, at the same time,
the Pacific Ocean, the Himalayas, the Alps, Brisbane, and Oslo at rest?


The truth is that if the universe does rotate - an event highly unlikely
to happen anyway – then all of the things, inside it, must rotate together,
including, of course, the whole earth & the lonely and 'miserable'
pendulum at the North Pole.


And therefore, the lonely and 'miserable' pendulum, on the North Pole,
can distinguish and differentiate very easily between the rotation of the universe
and the rotation of the earth around its own geometrical axis.


In short, Einstein's argument, for relative rotation, must bite the dust and collapse
on itself in utter disgrace and humiliation; and even this handy-dandy illustration
by Colleague Ufonaut99, during the sizzling Australian summer, when the
taipans are running all over the Outback like hell:


[linked image]?w=640


could not save it:


[linked image]




Just take a closer look:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1447387214/last-1460170825/We+now+ask%2C+why+is+this+difference+between+the+two+bodies-





[linked image]
















 
 
jaquecusto

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

May 21 2016, 11:41 AM 

Hi,AAF!

Let's see this exemple:

[linked image]

Rotating spinning top on a stationary disc.

[linked image]

Standing spinning top on a rotating disc.

Apparently, in this second case, the spinning top will fall. In this situation the spinning top is stopped and does not produce the gyroscopic effect.
But if the universe is spinning except the top, what will happen?

 
 
Anonymous

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

May 21 2016, 2:43 PM 

>>>>> However, IF WE ASSUME the general principle of relativity is valid .....


https://www.funnypica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Ugly-People1.jpg

 
 
Heisenberg "top of iceberg"

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

May 21 2016, 3:43 PM 

>>>>> However, IF WE ASSUME the general principle of relativity is valid .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk0RvzaHq_Q

 
 
Ufonaut99

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

May 22 2016, 10:41 AM 

Hi AAF,

Hah - call that a snake? THIS is a snake :
[linked image]

Actually, my son’s Jungle Python. OK, admittedly the taipan would have it for breakfast, but still he looks cool [linked image]

But forget the taipan’s ….. Got this shared to me today :

Even the birds in Australia want you dead !

Heh … the Aussie tourist board probably want me dead by now ! so I’d better remind everyone that yes, we do have no end of loveable and amazing creatures over here as well happy.gif

AAF: In short, Einstein's argument, for relative rotation, must bite the dust and collapse on itself in utter disgrace and humiliation; and even this handy-dandy illustration by Colleague Ufonaut99, … could not save it:


[linked image]

The illustration showed perfectly well what I stated :
[S_1 having] EXACTLY the same position means that there is NO up/down motion being seen.

NO up/down motion being seen means NO "circular obit in the sky".

NO circular orbit in the sky means that your entire argument falls apart.

The fact that you never addressed this, nor found any flaw in the list of steps from first principles, except by just repeating the claim, hardly means that the illustration failed. So I stand by my last post in that thread :
Ufonaut: If there was ANY validity to [your] claim, then you would have been able to find a flaw in the working out of that list of steps, … if there is no flaw in steps up to 31, then the final step 32 conclusion is valid, which means that your arguments are not 

So your challenge is simple : If you want to continue the discussion, then find a flaw in those steps that we can further discuss, because otherwise your claims remain empty. 

The challenge is still open ... if you want to take it up happy.gif

 
 
Ufonaut99

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

May 22 2016, 11:30 AM 

Hi Jaquecusto,

Not sure what point you’re trying to get at here. When I first saw the diagrams, I thought you were trying to claim that Relativity would incorrectly equate the two situations because they have the same relative rotation between top and disc. Such a claim would be false, of course, since the situations are not symmetrical - after all, the rotating top (in the first picture) experiences acceleration (and so centrifugal force, etc), that the stationary one does not.
Apparently, in this second case, the spinning top will fall. In this situation the spinning top is stopped and does not produce the gyroscopic effect.
But if the universe is spinning except the top, what will happen?

If the universe is spinning except the top, then the top will feel the inertial drag … the acceleration … from the universe. You guessed it - that’s the first picture, so the top does not fall.

Don’t get caught up with incorrect picture about “the universe is spinning”. As per the discussion in the other thread, it’s really the relative rotation between the object and the universe that we’re talking about. After all, a second top could be spinning at a different rate, and we’d also be talking about the universe spinning around it. Clearly, the universe itself could not be spinning at different rates, simply because of a couple of tops happy.gif

 
 
Ufonaut99

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

May 22 2016, 11:40 AM 

Hi Heisenberg "top of iceberg",

Yep, the Sagnac effect is perfectly consistent with SR/GR.

One thing that many anti-relativists seem to forget, though, is that the Sagnac effect totally disproves Emission theory - that is, the idea that the speed of light is dependent on it's source. In fact, that's why Georges Sagnac came up with the experiment in the first place happy.gif

 
 
roger

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

May 22 2016, 1:35 PM 

A number of authors have suggested that the Sagnac effect contradicts the original postulates of Special Relativity, since the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light is violated in rotating systems. [1,2,3] Sagnac himself designed the experiment of 1913 to prove the existence of the aether [4]. Other authors have attempted to explain the effect within the theoretical framework of relativity, even going as far as calling the effect “relativistic”.[5] However, we seek in this paper to show how the Sagnac effect contravenes in principle the concept of the relativity of time and motion.....

Conclusions:

It is often argued that the predictions of Special and General Relativity have been continuously verified and that therefore the theory is unquestionable. However, other theories, such as Lorentz ether theories modified to take into account gravitational effects, can also make similar claims. There are in fact multiple mathematical routes by which a correct prediction can be arrived at, but these theories may imply very different interpretations of what our physical reality is. And this is at the heart of what is wrong with the theory of relativity – it may make successful predictions based on math, but implies a nature of time and space which are not only inconsistent with logic and reason, but are even contradictory. Our interpretation is that these problems arise because of the switch from the absolute time / variable speed of light of Lorentz (1904) [13] to relative time / absolute speed of light of Einstein (1905) – two stances which are only slightly different mathematically. In Lorentz’s favour, the Sagnac effect demonstrates that depending on the placement of the observer, it is possible to see this variable speed of light and to confound apparent time dilation. Our analysis of Einstein’s light clock has shown that it will always count in error if the speed of light is not C in the moving frame. And further, our thought experiment with sidereal clocks has shown that the entire premise that time dilation corresponds to a change in “real” time is highly questionable. So when countered with the argument that General Relativity can explain the Sagnac effect, we might ask, why bother? If time dilation is an illusion, then the entire 4D time-space continuum of Einstein should be considered, to use his own word for the aether, “superfluous.”[7]
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html

 
 
Anonymous

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

May 22 2016, 9:19 PM 

>>>>> ... the Sagnac effect totally disproves Emission theory .....

[linked image]

 
 
AAF

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

May 23 2016, 12:00 AM 










Hi; Ufonaut99:


Would the taipan have the jungle Python
for breakfast?


YEP!


The taipan is super-toxic:

http://snake-facts.weebly.com/inland-taipan.html


[linked image]


One bite; and the beautiful pet python
is history!


happy.gif


And the CHALLENGE is being saved . . .
for next time . . .


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


"Apparently, in this second case, the spinning top will fall.
In this situation the spinning top is stopped and does not produce
the gyroscopic effect. But if the universe is spinning except the top,
what will happen?"




Hello, Jaquecusto:


If the universe is spinning except the top, then the universe will, suddenly,
transfer a huge amount of angular momentum to the non-spinning top.


And as a result, the non-spinning top will hit with a tremendous bang
everything around it.


And I mean, here, a real 'tremendous bang' equivalent to one thousand
atomic bombs or even more!


And just to get a glimpse of how horrendous that hypothetical situation can be,
let's imagine dropping a passenger from rest inside a race car traveling at
a maximum speed of 300 km/h:


[linked image]


That resting passenger is going to be hammered;
right?



[linked image]





















 
 
AAF

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

May 25 2016, 12:00 AM 











"The illustration showed perfectly well what I stated: [S_1 having]
EXACTLY the same position means that there is NO up/down motion
being seen. NO up/down motion being seen means NO "circular obit
in the sky". NO circular orbit in the sky means that your entire
argument falls apart. The fact that you never addressed this, nor
found any flaw in the list of steps from first principles, except by
just repeating the claim, hardly means that the illustration failed.
So I stand by my last post in that thread: If there was ANY validity
to [your] claim, then you would have been able to find a flaw in the
working out of that list of steps, … if there is no flaw in steps up to 31,
then the final step 32 conclusion is valid, which means that your arguments
are not So your challenge is simple : If you want to continue the discussion,
then find a flaw in those steps that we can further discuss, because otherwise
your claims remain empty. The challenge is still open ...
if you want to take it up.






Hello; Ufonaut99:



It seems, to me, you never tried to finish reading that very long thread after
the illustration POST!



wink.gif



O.K.; this illustration:


[linked image]


says that the observer's location is making an angle of 53o with
the location of a spherical object at about 4,000 km over the North Pole;
and the distance between the observer and the North Pole is about 3,000 km.


And so, [S_1 (is) having] no CHANCE in hell to stay EXACTLY in the same position.


Because there must be a big amount of 'up/down motion' to be seen
from the geographical latitude of Oslo at least.


And there must be a considerable amount of "circular obit in the sky" to be observed
from the geographical latitude of Stockholm too.


And therefore, thanks to the above illustration, my 'argument' has become
even way much stronger, instead of falling apart;
right?



happy.gif




















 
 
Ufonaut99

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

May 25 2016, 10:41 PM 

AAF: The taipan is super-toxic:http://snake-facts.weebly.com/inland-taipan.html

It’s not only the snakes - try this one :
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-venomous-spider

Hey, we even have the most venomous …. Platypus !

[linked image]

But we can forgive them that, ‘cos they’re so cute happy.gif

AAF: It seems, to me, you never tried to finish reading that very long thread after the illustration POST!

Read it, but take the errors one at a time, otherwise we’d never get anywhere - so nail this one down first happy.gif

AAF: Because there must be a big amount of 'up/down motion' to be seen from the geographical latitude of Oslo at least.

And there must be a considerable amount of "circular obit in the sky" to be observed from the geographical latitude of Stockholm too.

WHY “must” there be ?
No reason given; just another repetition of empty claims, with NOTHING supporting them.

AAF: And therefore, thanks to the above illustration, my 'argument' has become even way much stronger, instead of falling apart; right?

Wrong.

OK, you claim that in the above illustration that S_1 will be seen to form a “circular orbit in the sky”
But don’t just claim it …. SHOW IT, yes?

SHOW WHY S_1 in the illustration “must” move up and down in the camera’s vision

SHOW how something that is always 3000Km straight ahead, and 4000Km up, can be at anything other than that 53 degree angle in the sky.

SHOW with maths, not just word claims.

If you can wink.gif

 
 
AAF

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

May 27 2016, 12:00 AM 










"Hey, we even have the most venomous …. Platypus! And "there
must be a considerable amount of "circular obit in the sky" to be
observed from the geographical latitude of Stockholm too." WHY “must”
there be? No reason given; just another repetition of empty claims, with
NOTHING supporting them. OK, you claim that in the above illustration that
S_1 will be seen to form a “circular orbit in the sky” But don’t just claim
it …. SHOW IT, yes? SHOW WHY S_1 in the illustration “must” move up and down
in the camera’s vision. SHOW how something that is always 3000Km straight ahead,
and 4000Km up, can be at anything other than that 53 degree angle in the sky.
SHOW with maths, not just word claims. If you can wink."







Of course, this Platypus is the most venomous:


[linked image]


But, beside the venom, the taipan has CHARISMA


[linked image]


and GOT 7 scores for its great personality:

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-criteria-based-deadliest-snakes-in-the-world/



[linked image]



Anyway; in this illustration:


[linked image]


the location of the observer is always along the periphery of a circle
whose radius is equal to 3,000 km.


And since the height of S_1 over the North Pole is equal to 4,000 km;
the circle of the rotating observer's location must subtend on the sky an angle
whose tangent is equal to 3000/4000 = 3/4.


And therefore, S_1 must appear, to that observer, to be traveling along
the periphery of a big circle whose radius is equal to
[(3000/4000) x 3000] = 2250 km.


Now; what about the 'up/down' motion of S_1?


Well; if the observer moves from Oslo towards the North Pole, S_1 must
move up to reflect the motion of the approaching observer.


And by contrast, if the same observer moves away from the North Pole,
then S_1 must move down in order to reflect the motion
of the receding observer.


And that is it . . .


Einstein's argument, for relative rotation, is simply
non-functioning and TOAST!



happy.gif

















 
 
jaquecusto

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

May 27 2016, 6:40 AM 

The Earth Rotates!

He who observes the sky in the North Pole to see the stars rotate in the opposite situation to that observe the stars at the south pole. In the event of a relative situation, every part of the Cosmos that lies north of the Equator (excluding the Earth's axis is tilted) must rotate in the opposite direction the part that lies south of the equator.

 
 
jaquecusto

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

May 27 2016, 6:46 AM 

Invalid argument!

[linked image]

For this crazy elephant, the stars spin backwards.

 
 
Heisenberg "top of iceberg"

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

May 27 2016, 10:10 AM 

The elephant is wrong. The sun is still rising in the east and setting in the west.

 
 
Ufonaut99

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

May 28 2016, 3:47 AM 

AAF: [Taipan] GOT 7 scores for its great personality:

Actually, that’s one of the things that most surprised me about snakes, when my son started getting into them. I always used to think of them as simple mindless unintelligent beasts. But then we went to the pet shop with him, and they got one out. I can still remember being surprised at how inquisitive and friendly this thing was - it was actively looking around, and seeing what was going on. Interesting creatures happy.gif

AAF: Now; what about the 'up/down' motion of S_1? Well; if the observer moves from Oslo towards the North Pole …

An observer who moves has never been in question; I am disputing your claim that an observer who does NOT move will see see an up/down motion of S_1.

AAF: And therefore, S_1 must appear, to that observer, to be traveling along the periphery of a big circle

THAT claim, since travel “along the periphery of a big circle” includes an up/down component.

Let’s say the radius of your supposed circle is X degrees. It is clear from the illustration that S_1 is ALWAYS 3,000km straight ahead of the camera, and ALWAYS 4,000km above the camera. It’s line of sight, by simple trigonometry, is therefore ALWAYS at an angle of 53 degrees.

Except you claim it’s not. You claim that that 3,000km 4,000km right-angled triangle sometimes has an angle of 53+X degrees, and sometimes has an angle of 53-X degrees, even though (by definition from the illustration) the lengths of the triangle never change.

THAT is the claim I am asking you to justify.

 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 521 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement