Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: "We cannot feel our motion in space...."

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    136
    "We can't feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion' ("The Universe & Dr Einstein" p73, Lincoln Barnett 1959). Why should one of Albert's chief disciples write this if Mother Gea is not only relatively but absolutely in motion? Where's the incontestable evidence? After all, declaring that a stationary earth is unacceptable is not the same as authenticating it to be on the move!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    We've gone over this before on this board. Basically, there is no scientific evidence for movement or not. To believe one or the other to the exclusion of all else is non-scientific, a religious point of view. That discussion is better held somewhere else.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    On 2002-01-13 16:43, Dunash wrote:
    "We can't feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion' ("The Universe & Dr Einstein" p73, Lincoln Barnett 1959).
    Welcome Dunash. Maybe he told this in the context of the Relativity only.

    Mother Gea is not only relatively but absolutely in motion?
    To the little extent of my knowledge, the question of the absolutes are better addressed with the Newtonian approach, so the expression "absolutely in motion" seems a little displaced amidst relativistic jargon. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Where's the incontestable evidence?
    For Earth's movement? I'm personally satisfied with things like anual aberration, parallax and so on.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    313
    Perhaps in 1959 the statement was true.

    From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bkg3k.html

    "Anisotropy of 3K Background
    An anisotropy of about 0.1% exists in the cosmic microwave background radiation which is attributed to a Doppler shift caused by the motion of the solar system through the radiation. This anisotropy indicates motion at a velocity of about 370 km/sec relative to a "comoving observer", one who rides along with the general expansion of the universe."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-13 19:02, Karl wrote:
    which is attributed to a Doppler shift
    Careful there. Attributed??

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Dunash--

    I ahev posted this before, and evidently I must again. Here is exactly why geocentrism is wrong as you advocate it.

    Geocentrism, as advocated by creationists or
    other religiously fundamental people, is certainly wrong.
    How, you may ask? What is going on is that you can do a change of reference
    frame to a geocentric one, and by relativity the math must still work out.
    I readily admit that. I do not understand all the math involved, but I
    will take it for granted that it works out, and that physically,
    geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.

    But note
    the words "just as valid". Also, by relativity, it cannot
    be any *more* valid; geocentrism is just another change of frame
    (although to a non-inertial one).

    What geocentrists are saying is
    that geocentrism is the one, true frame. Creationists must say that
    because that is what is says in the bible.Now pay attention here,
    because this is the important bit: to say geocentrism isn't wrong, you
    have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as
    any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to
    ignore that very same premise.

    Geocentrism as the One True Way is
    therefore self-contradictory. It doesn't work.

  7. #7
    Guest
    Maybe its not possible for some human's
    to precieve motion, i'll say i am very
    convinced that if its where to STOP
    its absence would shure be noticable.
    Also i site the heavy pendulem
    swinging on a long wire that forms a circle
    as the Earth spins. as an example of
    motion precieved. and that of a drunk person
    in a room that seams to spin. Preception,
    deceived, probably, but maybe rooms do spin
    anyway ther must be a mechanism that causes

    it. So I VOTE FOR [X] yes

    now what was the D`bait about again?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-14 02:32, HUb' wrote:
    Preception,
    deceived, probably, but maybe rooms do spin
    anyway ther must be a mechanism that causes

    it.
    Sure. Currently, that best guess at a mechanism is general relativity. GR allows us to use any reference frame though, including an earth-fixed one, and the physics (and experiments!) still works out.

    Wrap your mind around that, and you understand the universe.

Similar Threads

  1. Earths Motion in Space
    By JaceNicklien in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-26, 04:15 AM
  2. Curved Space and Planetary Motion
    By Fiery Phoenix in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2009-Jun-24, 11:07 PM
  3. Space Advocates Feel the Bush Plan Needs Work
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-11, 04:17 AM
  4. Deep space - feel insignificant here
    By Olbers_Paradox in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-29, 01:02 PM
  5. Discussion: Space Advocates Feel the Bush ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-21, 12:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •