The major error with this approach is that it ignores the fact that many theories, once well-established in many experiments, are integrated into many precision measurement techniques. This means the original theory gets tested every time the measurement technique or technology is used.
Consider the phenomenon of stellar aberration (wikipedia). Aberration is a consequence of the fact that we see objects by the light they emit (or reflect) and that the speed of light is finite.
Everyone is probably familiar with the effect of aberration. The popular analogy is of walking through rainfall. Even though the rain may be falling vertically, to the walking observer, the rain appears to be falling at an angle.
In the case of light from distant objects, the change in the angle of propagation for the moving observer means that the object under observation will appear at a different position, relative to a given coordinate system, than it appears to an observer at rest in that system. In the case of the Earth moving around the Sun, this effect makes stars appear to trace out ellipses on the sky. The aspect of the ellipse varies depending on the angle of the star relative to the plane of the Earth's orbit, the ecliptic. At the ecliptic pole, the effect makes the star move around in a circle, while in the plane of the Earth's orbit, the star appears to move back and forth. The maximum value of this aberration angle is about 20 seconds of arc, about 1/90th the diameter of the full Moon (about 30 minutes of arc). This aberration angle created some problems for the first attempts to measure the parallax (wikipedia) of stars as it is much larger than parallax angles for the nearest stars.
Aberration in Practice
The effect of aberration is sufficiently small, that it is of no real concern in casual astronomical observation, when precision pointing not required. When more precision is required, the contribution of aberration becomes important.
Catalogs of stars and ephemerides of planets are generally computed with the position of the object in a specific reference frame. However, when it comes to pointing telescopes or similar light-based instruments at these stars and planets, the position and velocity of the observer relative to reference frame of the catalog must be known, as well as the velocity of the target object relative to the reference frame. This result is then used to compute the pointing corrections needed for the telescope to properly position the star or planet in the field-of-view. Note that the catalogs are constructed from telescope measurements and the aberration effects in the telescope reference frame must be REMOVED to make the catalog entry (ADS). This makes it possible to use the catalog in a different reference frame.
Resources for understanding stellar aberration:
- “Spherical Astronomy“ by Robin Green
- Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac
- Positional Astronomy: Aberration
FAQ entry about stellar (and other) aberration effects on the Hipparcos astrometry mission
The ancients navigated by knowing the positions of the stars. Modern navigation, requires high-precision for astronomical positions. Today, these positions provide the inertial reference frame (wikipedia) used for many precision navigation systems on the Earth, such as GPS. Most people don't even think about the connection of the GPS receiver in their phone with the ICRF (USNO) or its successor, ICRF2 (NASA), but this reference system is used to establish accurate positions of the GPS satellites.
But the positions aren't just important for navigation on the Earth. The orientation of a spacecraft relative to a reference coordinate system determines how applications of thrust by the spacecraft will move it. Even a small error in the spacecraft direction angle, magnified by the spacecraft motion over millions of kilometers at high speeds, can create a huge error in the final position.
To determine the orientation of a spacecraft, devices called star-trackers are mounted to the spacecraft to obtain information on the spacecraft orientation. Modern star trackers are very precise. Ball Aerospace has models (Ball Aerospace) with 3 and 0.2 arcsec positional accuracy - small enough that aberration effects must be included.
- Spacecraft Math by Stephen Leake (2009)
- High-Fidelity Measurement Models for Optical Spacecraft Navigation, John A. Christian and E. Glenn Lightsey
- Gravity Probe B needed high-accuracy pointing (20 milli-arcseconds!) in order to do its experiment: Covariant calculation of general relativistic effects in an orbiting gyroscope experiment, Twenty milliarcsec pointing system for the Rolling GP-B Spacecraft
As the need for more accurate positional measurements increases, the inclusion of aberration is even more important.
Gaia (ESA) is the follow-on astrometry mission to Hipparcos, with the goal of collecting accurate stellar parallaxes on a billion stars. For more details, see Reference Systems, Conventions, and Notations for Gaia by U. Bastian (2007).
For astrometry missions requiring micro-arcsecond precision, we'll will actually have to include the effects of the motion of the solar system barycenter moving around the galactic center, a phenomenon called secular aberration: Astrometric Effects of Secular Aberration. Sergei M. Kopeikin and Valeri V. Makarov, ApJ 131, 1471 (2006).
Astrometric Software
The effects of aberration are included in astrometric software libraries such as NOVAS (USNO) and SPICE (NASA/JPL), which is actively used for satellite trajectory planning. Here's a direct link to the documentation of the subroutine for computing the position of the satellite relative to the target, which includes corrections for stellar & planetary aberration (spkezr).
In Summary
Aberration has been measured from reference frames other than the Earth. Spacecraft in Earth orbit and going to other planets must compute a different barycentric velocity correction to accurately account for aberration effects. Positional corrections due to aberration must be included to define inertial reference frames for accurate navigation, including GPS systems on Earth.
With their interest in ignoring relativistic effects such as aberration, Biblical Geocentrists have still failed to demonstrate that they are competent to navigate satellites anywhere in the solar system. Any nation that expects to either travel in space, or reap other benefits of space-faring capability, should view Biblical Geocentrism as a recipe for lost satellites and lost astronauts.
Thanks to Scott Snell, a flight software engineer at NASA/Goddard, for directing me to some of the public data available on star-trackers.
22 comments:
Assuming that John Martin (or johnmartin2009) accurately summarises geocentrism, that world view is a-scientific:
"Geocentrists don’t embrace merely an inductive, positivist world view as the foundation for their model. The Geocentrist embraces a supernaturalist, creationist, revelatory world view, based upon the nature of man, natural theology, metaphysics, psychology and some other sciences as well."
If so, then there would seem to be no point in trying to engage in a rational, science-based discussion on this topic.
Source: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1903325#post1903325
Nereid
Nereid,
Thanks for handing this over to the forum. I should probably join over there but just don't have the time to posts to additional forums and maintain this blog where I want to focus on more original content.
I've examined some of the thread and am not surprised at the attitude Mr. Martin exhibits.
Many people do not recognize the PRACTICAL implications of pseudo-science beliefs, which is why I try to track down connections between fundamental science and technology.
Hi Tom;
Very cool.
Your point: “This means the original theory gets tested every time the measurement technique or technology is used”, would also apply to everyday mathematics.
It seems another common trait which many pseudoscientists constantly pride themselves on, is their strength in rational and philosophical logic.
Mathematics is based on formal logic, which is about the most pure form of logic so far developed, and when mathematics is applied to the physical sciences, the awesome power of all this becomes apparent. Everytime we use mathematics, this logic is put to the test. Who would seriously challenge the rationality of mathematics ?
It is yet another paradox as to why those who are so vocal in chastising the use of mathematics in say, cosmology, actually seek the very clarity afforded by axiomatic frameworks and formal proof theory.
Of course, when mathematical proofs are serendipitously incorporated into theory underpinning plasma physics or electromagnetism, its virtue is upheld and cited as a major strength underpinning the emergent pseudoscientific theory.
Why is that ?
Regards
To Torque,
I like to place a lot of emphasis on how it is the SAME fundamental science that describes not only how the distant universe works, but our technologies here on Earth as well. As a result, every time we use the tech, we are testing the theory.
See Cosmos In Your Pocket and many other posts on this blog. I visit this theme often.
Anonymous - Assuming that John Martin (or johnmartin2009) accurately summarises geocentrism, that world view is a-scientific:
JM - It is simply not a-scientific to embrace the truths of other sciences when embracing the truths of empirical science as discovered by the inductive method. Scientists do this all the time. every time a scientist makes a truth claim he is assuming the truths of epistemology are correct.
Further examples could also be given, but the point is made. Anonymous' comment is simply false.
JM
Torque - Who would seriously challenge the rationality of mathematics ?
JM - anyone who has a good grip on Aristotle and scholastic philosophy would challenge "maths' logic, because such logic hides problems within the concepts being discussed and "demonstrated".
I have repeatedly shown over in BAUT that relativity is invalid and unsound and self contradictory and inconsistent with itself. Yet the maths "works out" because maths hides all these problems.
In short, relativity cannot be a reflection of what really is going on because length contraction and time dilation are not real.
The claim that “This means the original theory gets tested every time the measurement technique or technology is used”, would also apply to everyday mathematics." is simply false because the technology that is apparently based upon relativity is merely a maths model that does not require time to dilate or lengths to contract in the real. As these "things" don't happen in the real, then the maths works ok in the real, simple because the lack of time dilation and length contraction in the real doesn't mean anything to the gadgets real operation.
JM
Tom - As a result, every time we use the tech, we are testing the theory.
JM - Over at BAUT, I was repeatedly told the Trouton-Rankine experiment did not invalidate length contraction because it was in the wrong inertial frame. So Tom, can you refer me to any experiments that have been properly designed to test length contraction in the correct reference frame?
What is the correct reference frame to test for length contraction and why?
If there have been no experiments to test for length contraction, then how can relativity be more than a thought experiment + maths?
Can length contraction ever be tested? If so, how?
If length contraction hasn't been tested then doesn't this make the claims of relativity very weak, or in the real, non existent?
If the T-R experiment failed to detect length contraction in the moving frame, how can length contraction be detected in the earth frame, which is considered to be stationary for the experiment?
If length contraction is really only a maths transform and this is considered to be a success, then why not have maths transforms for anything to anything, based upon any assumption whatsoever? For example, we can assume light moves at any speed whatsoever and then transform from one frame to another to obtain the length contraction and time dilation to make the physical properties the same for all inertial frames.
As length contraction and time dilation are true only through a thought experiment and maths (for experiments cannot really detect time dilation or length contraction, even though relativists think experiments can do this), why not set up a thought experiment that requires length expansion and time contraction to transform from one frame to another and therefore save the physical properties in all inertial frames?
When the sagnac effect is taken into account in satellite transmissions, do lengths contract more or less when light travels at c+-v between the satellite and the earth?
The retroreflectors on the moon have been designed to return laser beams along the same angel in which the beam enters the mirror, thereby sending the beam back along the same flight path in space from which it came. The Lunar laser ranging experiment fires a laser from a gun on earth, the laser hits the retroreflector and returns back to the same station on earth. During this time of about 2s, the earth has travelled through space about 1200km, the laser spread is only 20km, so how is the laser seen back on earth using relativity theory? If relativity is correct, then the mirrors must contract according to the earth-moon velocity difference of 500m/s, yet this contraction will probably distort the outgoing path, causing the laser to do what it was not designed to do. How does relativity explain the Lunar laser ranging experiment, without reference to a stationary earth?
Signals from satellites do not have aberration relative to the earth, therefore according to light aberration theory, the earth is stationary relative to the satellite. How does heliocentrism account for this lack of light aberration from satellites?
Light from the moon does not aberrate, indicating the earth is stationary relative to the moon, and therefore stationary relative to the sun and the stars. How does heliocentrism account for the lack of light aberration from the moon?
Does light from the sun aberrate? If not, does heliocentrism account for the lack of light aberration from the moon? If so, how does heliocentrism account for aberration of sun light and not moon light?
JM
To Torque's point:
johnmartin2009 (JM) actually wrote about the relevance, validity, etc of logic in several of his BAUT forum posts. Here's one example:
"The logical arguments all suffer from the same problem. They reduce the space time continuum down to symbols, which are treated as quantities in relativity maths. As these symbols are never defined according to the nature of space and the nature of time, then the space time continuum is merely a maths or symbolic logic figment and nothing more.
Symbolic logic is fundamentally flawed when it does not account for the nature of the things it is symbolising. If and only if the nature of a thing is possible to exist in the real, then and only then can it be correctly analysed within a logical model. Why? Logic is concerned with abstract concepts, but when a logical analysis is completed, for it to prove anything about the real, those concepts must be based upon the real.
If a thing cannot exist in the real, then the logical analysis is therefore not based upon the real. As the space time continuum cannot exist in the real (see previous posts concerning the nature of the continuum for details), then logical analysis of the space time continuum only proves a logical analysis can be performed on things that really do not exist.
Relativity is illogical, no matter how many false “proofs” are entertained, simply because the space-time continuum is contradictory concerning the nature of the continuum, space and time."
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1903617#post1903617
In my own words, JM bases his physics, in part, on truth and reality ("in the real") discovered by armchair philosophysing.
To Tom's point about physics actually working: both JM and the EU crowd frankly couldn't care less. This attitude is, to me, astonishing.
Nereid
To John Martin,
I'm not sure what to make of this. Did you not read my post? Perhaps you have a problem understanding concepts or a similar learning disability?
Are you trying to claim that while we might measure aberration when going to Mars, it might not be valid for Venus, Mercury, the Sun or the Moon? Are you truly so incapable of understanding the concepts?
We haven't measured every electron or proton in the universe, so we can't PROVE they are all identical. Yet we build our technology on the assumption that they ARE all identical (see Astronomy as an unprovable science).
There are many experiments suggested by quantum mechanics that we can't do, yet QM has passed every experiment that we can do. By your reasoning, we still shouldn't be using QM to design semiconductor electronics.
By your reasoning, we would still be living in caves or mud huts.
To Nereid & JM,
If JM is that clueless as to how mathematics maps to reality, I would not hire him as an accountant, much less for a more technical profession.
Mathematics: The Language of Science
I worked my way through college doing business and software consulting. It was amazing how many times business have gotten themselves into trouble because someone in the accounting office decided not to believe the math.
Heck, that's part of the problem behind the recent financial collapse was people didn't believe the math outside their own limited application.
JM wrote: "It is simply not a-scientific to embrace the truths of other sciences when embracing the truths of empirical science as discovered by the inductive method. Scientists do this all the time. every time a scientist makes a truth claim he is assuming the truths of epistemology are correct."
I find it very hard to understand what you write JM.
For example, it seems (to me, at least) clear that you consider science (or at least physics, and astrophysics) to be, or be founded on, "an inductive, positivist world view". What, then, could "the truths of other sciences" be?!?
Another: How can epistemology have "truths"?
And: How can a "truth" be incorrect?
It's almost as if you write in a language which uses the same grammar and words as English, but you've given some key words different meanings (and not explained them to us).
Nereid
JM: "I have repeatedly shown over in BAUT that relativity is invalid and unsound and self contradictory and inconsistent with itself."
I, for one, do not doubt that you believe this.
However, as far as I could tell, you began your demonstration with a false premise (and we all know what truth value conclusions derived from false premises have, don't we?).
In any case, as far as I can tell, you did not - even once - state any version of the postulates of special relativity, so any invalidity, unsoundness (whatever this is), self contradiction, or internal inconsistency derives from something other than the foundations of special relativity.
Personally, I found your posts on spacetime amusing; indeed, your attempts to show that Minkowski spacetime to be invalid, unsound, self contradictory and internally inconsistent entirely missed the point!
JM: "Yet the maths "works out" because maths hides all these problems."
Who cares? It's incredibly fruitful math; using it you can make all sorts of predictions, and build all kinds of wonderful devices. Better, using it, you can develop a whole slew of new, testable hypotheses, do all sorts of experiments you'd never otherwise have thought of, and so on. If, along the way, much of what's written in philosophy textbooks needs to be trashed (or seriously modified), who cares?
Nereid
JM: "As these "things" don't happen in the real, then the maths works ok in the real, simple because the lack of time dilation and length contraction in the real doesn't mean anything to the gadgets real operation."
What we are left with, then (if we accept what JM wrote), is that we have no idea why the gadgets work the way they do!
JM, do you truly not see how weird your claim is?
Take two examples: HIPPARCOS ( http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=HIPPARCOS ) and GAIA ( http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=26 ).
How is it that the mission design of the former, and its operation after it failed to achieve the designed orbit, worked, in the sense that it was able to achieve the mission goals? If "relativity is invalid and unsound and self contradictory and inconsistent with itself", how do you explain that success?
In the case of the latter, what do you predict will happen? What inputs could you make - in principle - to the design teams, that would lead to greater certainly of the mission's success?
Nereid
Fascinating.
Hi Tom & Nereid: Your messages to me are received, understood and respected. I have much reading to do ... (business as usual). :)
Johnmartin: you are arguing a point which is exclusive of science. Science doesn’t deal with truths. Science provides us with tools which help to interpret and predict behaviors of the physical world around us, (eg: stellar aberration). Robust meta-languages are a necessary part of achieving that goal.
Real science is indifferent to your pursuit of the truth of reality. Have you considered that nothing is real until it interacts to produce an observable effect ? Where scientific theories have made an as yet unobservable prediction, an indeterminate state exists.
Also, unless you say so, in order for you to achieve your goal, it is not necessary for you to disprove scientific means or predictions ... so why do you pursue this aspect ?
Overall, I am left with the question: ‘When does geocentrism and electric universism become anti-science, and why’ ?
Regards.
Nereid - In any case, as far as I can tell, you did not - even once - state any version of the postulates of special relativity, so any invalidity, unsoundness (whatever this is), self contradiction, or internal inconsistency derives from something other than the foundations of special relativity.
JM - Well know you have plenty on your plate. I've constructed 58 arguments to invalidate relativity using the foundations of relativity theory and Einsteins 1905 paper.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics/page13
See post 367 down to post 372.
JM
Dr Bridgman - Are you trying to claim that while we might measure aberration when going to Mars, it might not be valid for Venus, Mercury, the Sun or the Moon? Are you truly so incapable of understanding the concepts?
JM - Dr Bridgman. If the earth moon system is moving through space at 600km/s, then the aberration of moon light should be easy to detect and yet it doesn't exist. I'm open to being corrected on this if you can find some information from a reputable journal on the matter. Until then, the lack of aberration of moon light is a local effect that is missing. As such, even the most strident heliocentrist and relativist should at least take note of the geocentric position, drop the empty rhetoric and present a real science answer to the real problem. If more empty rhetoric is forthcoming, then the geocentric position is all the stronger and the helio and relativist position is all the weaker.
JM
Mr. Martin,
No, it appears that YOU might be trying to claim that aberration might apply to some objects but not others. Do we need to measure every electron in the universe before we can confidently build electronics?
The 600km/s claim is nonsense for the problem in question. Aberration depends only on the RELATIVE velocity of the object and observer.
Do you have some difficulty comprehending this or are you deliberately distorting the facts?
JM wrote: "If the earth moon system is moving through space at 600km/s, then the aberration of moon light should be easy to detect and yet it doesn't exist. I'm open to being corrected on this ..."
Here's the thing JM, you can describe an experiment (observation actually) to objectively measure said aberration. Then perform that experiment. Then write up your results, and publish them.
It should cost you no more an year's salary - possibly much less - and has the potential to revolutionise not only astronomy, but also physics. An amazingly huge return on a quite modest investment (of both time and money), and a dead certain one to boot (given your absolute conviction as to the result).
What are you waiting for?
Nereid
JM wrote: "I've constructed 58 arguments to invalidate relativity using the foundations of relativity theory and Einsteins 1905 paper."
Your industry is admirable.
However, I wonder how much dross there is in the list? I mean, you produced an impressive list of 'acts of faith' (post #205 in the BAUT thread), but, even by your own standards, not all were created equal.
Taking you at your word (post #377), the first three are the place to start. Here are those three:
"§ - 1
The equations of mechanics that hold good assumes an absolute reference frame as absolute space in Newtonian mechanics and also infer an ether in Maxwell’s equations.
Yet light is not said to be dependent and therefore have a speed relative to the ether, but relative to an empty space inertial frame.
As the empty space inertial frame does not exist in Newtonian mechanics and the ether is denied in relativity, but affirmed in Maxwell’s equations, then relativity is based upon a postulate that contradicts the foundations of other physics theories, which it purports to maintain.
As relativity both affirms and denies the absolute space and ether, then relativity theory is contradictory.
------------------------------------
§ - 2
Relativity assumes the equations of mechanics hold good.
Newtonian mechanics says gravity is caused by mass attraction
Relativity says gravity is caused by the bending of the space-time continuum
But the space time continuum is not mass attraction.
Therefore relativity is not based upon “the equations of mechanics hold good”
Therefore relativity theory is self contradictory.
------------------------------------
§ - 3
Relativity is based upon the notion that light is at c in empty space
But relativity says space is a continuum of space and time that bends to cause gravity around bodies
As the space time continuum permeates all space within the universe, then space-time is always bent around many bodies
As the bending of space time means space has properties, then space is never empty
As space is never empty, then the propagation of light through empty space never occurs in the real.
As a postulate of relativity is not based upon the real as described by relativity, then relativity is self contradictory."
The BAUT thread contains at least two posts addressing some, um, shortcomings of these (post #373 and #374); in essence, they are failures (and pretty spectacular ones at that) for reasons that include the classic 'false premise -> invalid conclusion' logic error.
To understand why your premises are false, however, may require some work. Perhaps a good place to start might be calculus, as originally published by Newton and/or Leibnitz? If one uses only the original publications, I think it's pretty easy to find contradictions of the kind you posted; words and meanings then were different than now, and the mathematical foundations of calculus weren't securely established until well over a century later (there's more, but that'll serve to illustrate my point).
So while Einstein's original publications are certainly interesting, they are not inerrant. Specifically, a good deal of work has been done since then, and robust sets of relativity postulates published later.
Are you interested in exploring this further?
Nereid
Nereid - The BAUT thread contains at least two posts addressing some, um, shortcomings of these (post #373 and #374); in essence, they are failures (and pretty spectacular ones at that) for reasons that include the classic 'false premise -> invalid conclusion' logic error.
JM - Those posts were answered and no substantial challenge was posted after this. In fact, I have a hunch that the mods found the invalidations of relativity so compelling they decided to close the thread.
Nereid - To understand why your premises are false, however, may require some work. Perhaps a good place to start might be calculus, as originally published by Newton and/or Leibnitz? If one uses only the original publications, I think it's pretty easy to find contradictions of the kind you posted; words and meanings then were different than now, and the mathematical foundations of calculus weren't securely established until well over a century later (there's more, but that'll serve to illustrate my point).
JM - the invalidations don't need any understanding of calculus. They only need common sense knowledge of what the theory proposes and what other theories, such as Newtonian mechanics propose. Your argument is not based on the content of any of the invalidations proposed.
Nereid - So while Einstein's original publications are certainly interesting, they are not inerrant.
JM - Many contradictions were found in the theory, regardless of your speculative truth claims.
Nereid - Specifically, a good deal of work has been done since then, and robust sets of relativity postulates published later.
JM - So now we are to beleive relativity is not really based on relativity papers, but on other, more developed postulates. Why would anyone beleive you, when the original paper was so flawed? I dont.
Nereid - Are you interested in exploring this further?
JM - The invalidations have been proposed and so far nobody was game enough to tackle any of them head on. So go for it. But I'd prefer if the dialogue was conducted in a forum that is neutral, such as theologyweb - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II/page130
The BAUT forum is thoroughly hostile in regard to moderators who continually interfere with good threads.
JM
JM wrote: “Let’s face it, the agnostic approach to science is a biased approach, no matter how much scientists think it is being objective. When it comes to the big questions about the origin of the universe and interactions of large bodies far away from earth, why should we really bother being agnostic about such matters and stick to rather archaic physics models that require us to make large acts of faith in the ability of matter to self organize and so on ? Is science really being objective by being agnostic about cosmology, or is it a closet pantheism being snuck into a field of knowledge?”
I would venture to say that the defense you have endured is not so much a defense of what you say is faith-based closet pantheism, but more, exasperation over a demonstrated misunderstanding of the knowledge accumulated through scientific means.
Clearly, you have not convinced anyone that Newtonian Mechanics (NM) or Relativity (R) is flawed. Rather, what has emerged is a demonstrated misunderstanding of NM, R, Aberration and Lorentz contraction.
Until alternative theories can match science’s knowledge, process, rationalism and outputs, there will be no mainstream support of those alternative theories. Can these alternatives stand on their own ? Will they develop useful technologies ? Is this a measure of their success ?
Along the way, will the ‘Alternativists’ become anti-scientists ? After all, as you claim: “most of science involves leaps of faith because that’s what humans do” .. then by the same logic, alternativists are also making the same leaps of faith. If so, what eventuates from their ‘leaps of faith’ in the real world ? Is it purely 'anti-science' sentiment ?
For your further consideration:
i) how can Geocentrism explain the observation of lunar parallax for a geocentric earth and;
ii) how is it that in particle accelerator experiments, the optimum degree of bunching is calculated on the basis of Lorentz contracted spacing between the particles, not on the rest frame spacing ? Is not the success of these experiments, an active demonstration of Lorentz contraction in ‘the real’ ?
Regards.
JM, the history of calculus was an analogy; while the essential ideas remain the same, today, the details - and especially the foundations - are quite different than what flowed from Newton's and Leibnitz' pens. Similarly with the foundations (postulates) of relativity; there are no internal contradictions, and testable conclusions (a.k.a. predictions) follow from the foundations, with as much rigour in the logic as anyone can ask for.
Your write "So now we are to beleive relativity is not really based on relativity papers, but on other, more developed postulates. Why would anyone beleive you, when the original paper was so flawed? I dont."
You can, of course, believe anything you wish; however, your gloss of what I wrote is, um, odd, to say the least. I suspect the non-discussion we're having springs from your fundamental worldview, and if we were to explore it, I believe we may find it contains a rejection of the 'objective, independently verifiable' package that is a cornerstone of science. One reason why I think this is these words of yours: "But I'd prefer if the dialogue was conducted in a forum that is neutral, such as theologyweb".
Anyway, do you have any comments on my other recent comment? The one with the suggestion that you might become an oft-cited figure in future history books if you were to test your convictions concerning aberration of the Moon (etc) by doing a modest-cost, zero-risk experiment?
Nereid
Post a Comment