Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: HMLS Theory of Gravitation? (was Discrete Scale Relativity...)
Next: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
From: JT on 15 Jul 2010 12:39 On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/15/10 7:16 AM, JT wrote: > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. JT
From: Dono. on 15 Jul 2010 13:30 On Jul 14, 8:55 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also > your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread. Craig, PE is a fringe journal (like Apeiron) dedicated to "disproving" relativity. This is why Gurcharn managed to "publish".
From: Dono. on 15 Jul 2010 13:30 On Jul 14, 8:55 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also > your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread. Craig, PE is a fringe journal (like Apeiron) dedicated to "disproving" relativity. This is why Gurcharn managed to "publish".
From: Sam Wormley on 15 Jul 2010 14:56 On 7/15/10 11:39 AM, JT wrote: > On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/15/10 7:16 AM, JT wrote: >> >>> So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at >>> 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, >>> so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you >>> do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) >> >> Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. > > So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. > > JT Little weak on the unit conversions, JT? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 16:53
On Jul 14, 4:51 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > > > | to the person across from you. > > > | > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > > > | the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > > | > > > | Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > > > | It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > > > | is (absolutely) rotating in the second case. > > > | > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > cross > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > sky > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > you > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > a > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > Do > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > amateur > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > universe > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > you > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question.. It > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > physic This seems to be a significant improvement in your self-assessment skills. |