0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect.2 Although Einstein was intrigued by Mach's principle, his general relativity does not fully agree with it. There have been attempts to formulate a theory which is more fully Machian, such as Brans-Dicke theory, but none have been completely successful.
quote:Originally posted by another_someone...You seem to be suggesting the Earth is held in place by the balanced rotation of the rest of the Universe.If this was the case, then why is the Solar System somewhere between 26,000 light-years and 35,000 light-years from the centre of the Milk Way, rather than at its centre? Even if the Milky Way had once been unbalance around the Earth, one would expect over time that it would balance itself our around the Earth (i.e. around the centre of its point of rotation).This would not be a problem for the other galaxies, since they are well away from your presumed Universal centre of rotation, and their own gravitational forces would have greater effect than the small differential in radius from the centre of rotation; but for the Milky Way, that is actually on the edge of the centre of rotation, and already is spread over such a large space at that close distance, it would not be able to retain its shape. The relative asymmetry of the Milky Way with respect to the Earth would only make sense if the Milky Way had a centre of rotation that was away from the Earth.
quote: You say that all historic observations are geocentric in nature – in that they are made from the Earth. On the other hand, the observations do clearly show parallax movements which cannot be explained by geocentric orbits without presuming some very complex forces at work. Regressive movements in the orbits of the planets around the Earth would require some force that is constantly altering the angular velocity of the planets around the Earth. A heliocentric solar system easily provides such a force.
quote:You state that “Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe” - as far as I am aware, the argument against a preferred reference frame related only to special relativity, and then only to inertial reference frames.
quote:You suggest that GR regards the universe as Machian: newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle [nonactive]quote:Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect.2 Although Einstein was intrigued by Mach's principle, his general relativity does not fully agree with it. There have been attempts to formulate a theory which is more fully Machian, such as Brans-Dicke theory, but none have been completely successful. Even if one were to accept a Machian universe, all that states is that you cannot discriminate between a rotating body, and a rotating environment, it does not (as far as I can ascertain) in any way suggest that you cannot determine the centre of rotation, or arbitrarily assign the centre of location to a different point in space. It may suggest that you cannot discriminate between a rotating Earth, and a stationary Earth, with the rest of the universe rotating around the Earth; but what it does not suggest is that you can regard an apparent rotation of Jupiter around the Sun as if it was a rotation of Jupiter around the Earth.
quote:Originally posted by markjwyattKeep in mind that Galileo Was Wrong is over 1000 pages long,
quote:Originally posted by markjwyattGeorge:First of all, I appreciate your response. It is not unusual that a response to this topic starts with mockery. You have raised some reasonable questions.
quote:quote:Originally posted by another_someone...You seem to be suggesting the Earth is held in place by the balanced rotation of the rest of the Universe.If this was the case, then why is the Solar System somewhere between 26,000 light-years and 35,000 light-years from the centre of the Milk Way, rather than at its centre? Even if the Milky Way had once been unbalance around the Earth, one would expect over time that it would balance itself our around the Earth (i.e. around the centre of its point of rotation).This would not be a problem for the other galaxies, since they are well away from your presumed Universal centre of rotation, and their own gravitational forces would have greater effect than the small differential in radius from the centre of rotation; but for the Milky Way, that is actually on the edge of the centre of rotation, and already is spread over such a large space at that close distance, it would not be able to retain its shape. The relative asymmetry of the Milky Way with respect to the Earth would only make sense if the Milky Way had a centre of rotation that was away from the Earth.I do not know exactly why that is so.
quote:quote: You say that all historic observations are geocentric in nature – in that they are made from the Earth. On the other hand, the observations do clearly show parallax movements which cannot be explained by geocentric orbits without presuming some very complex forces at work. Regressive movements in the orbits of the planets around the Earth would require some force that is constantly altering the angular velocity of the planets around the Earth. A heliocentric solar system easily provides such a force.If one considers the modern Tychonic system (Earth at center, Sun revolves around the earth with the universe, planets [not earth] orbit the sun), then all solar system movements are exactly the same as in the modern heliocentric (or barycentric). Regressive movements are simply due to the double rotation. As for parallax, the simplest solution is the neo Tychonic (modern Tychonic solar system with stars rotation centered on the sun). This is an exact geocentric inverse of the heliocentric. Threre are many other mechanisms discussed in Galileo Was Wrong for parallax, including abberational effects in ether, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Mad MarkI thought that it was already proven that there cannot be a so called centre of the universe, as that would imply that at the very centre of the planet earth one could find a particle that one could observe both its velocity (zero) and position which is impossible.