Banned
An article on the many different motivations of Einstein's critics
http://physicsweb.org/article/review/16/4/2
Remembering that Einstein's claim to fame was his ad hoc 1905 attempt to get round the zero-velocity result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment which was causing a crisis in physics, and thereby temporarily styming a return to an absolutist Geocentric paradigm. But only temporarily! Meanwhile relativistic geocentricity we can live with.
Established Member
Not sure what the point of this post is. The review of the book in question was so negative that it's hard to see why anyone would cite it as evidence of anything other than poor literature. Am I missing something here?
Established Member
Gethen: you hit the nail on the head. At first I could barely tell if the review was a review or an attack. I do not even know why I even tried to read this gibberish. Bah! I think i will just quit.
Established Member
Einstein said that he wasn't that motivated by Michelson-Morley, no?Originally Posted by Prince
Order of Kilopi
I figured out I don't understand 'Prince-ish' while interestingly enough I understand 'HUbish' a bit more these days.
I took the review as a pro-Einstein reviewer, reviewing a book because he thought the author was getting attention for the claims in the book, and the reviewer wanted to counter the book's claims.
But then again, I just skimmed the link.
Established Member
The OP has absolutely nothing to do with astronomy. It's merely a posting of a link to a review of an anti-Einstein book.
I get the feeling this board is turning into the General Sciences Coffee Room...
Established Member
Ignoring for a moment Prince's brilliant tactic of posting links to harsh reviews of the ideas that he often seems to defend himself, there are a few things to discuss in here. Indeed, we have here quite a complex little pice of text. It claims:
1) That the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment was causing a crisis in physics;
2) That Einstein attempted to "get round" the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment (whatever that means in this context!);
3) That Einstein's attempt was "ad hoc" (again, whatever that means!);
4) That Einstein had only one claim to fame;
5) That Einstein's claim to fame was his attempt to get round the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment;
I wonder if any of these implications has a basis of truth...
Established Member
Taken one at a time:
1) That the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment was causing a crisis in physics;
It did cause something of a crisis. At the time light was thought to travel through a medium called "ether" in a similar way that sound travels in air or water. This meant that the speed of light should vary as the earth moved through the ether. The MM experiment tried to measure this and found nothing. Hence the crisis.
2) That Einstein attempted to "get round" the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment (whatever that means in this context!);
He didn't try to "get around" it. Rather, it was one of the justifications he used for the second principal of special relativity. That is that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames.
3) That Einstein's attempt was "ad hoc" (again, whatever that means!);
The first principal of relativity was that all physical laws are unchanged in a transfer of reference frames. One problem was that Maxwell's equations (the description of electromagnatism) are not unchanged by a simple galilean transposition of coordinates. Lorentz found the transforms that did leave them unchanged. These include the time dilation and compression effects. When applied to the MM experiment, the Lorentz transforms explain why no effect was seen. The arm pointing along the direction of motion is shrunk. Einstein's achievement in SR was to derive the Lorentz transfroms from first principals simply assuming that c is constant in all frames.
4) That Einstein had only one claim to fame;
Please. Besides special relativity there is general relativity. Also, people forget that Einstein won the Nobel for his work on the photoelectric effect, not for any of the relativity papers.
5) That Einstein's claim to fame was his attempt to get round the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment;
See earlier answers. He didn't try to get around it. The result of the MM experiment is perfectly understandable in the contaxt of SR.
(edited to add description of Lorentz transform)
Established Member
kilopi's right on this point. Historians of science have shown that Einstein probably wasn't aware of Michelson-Morley and in fact wasn't surprised at all from the null results of there experiments since he derived that that's exactly what should happen. Einstein wasn't concerned with M-M at all, in point of fact.
Established Member
Very well put, Eta C. And Einstein published five papers in the year 1905: two which gave proofs for the size and existence of atoms, one formulating Special Relativity and one deriving E = mc^2 from SR, and the Nobel-winning paper on the photoelectric effect.
The original post on this thread seems to be a spectacularly clumsy and ill-informed general attack. Oh well.
Established Member
This has come to be expected from the Prince of Lies.
Oops! Did I just write that?ops:
Banned
Why can you not accept for one instant the most obvious inference of the MM experiment that the Earth is stationary relative to the ether? Why can it not be contemplated for one moment? Why invoke Fitgerald's lengthening of the tube at right-angles to the direction of travel, or Lorentz's shortening of the tube pointing in the direction of travel? "If I have seen further than others, it is because I peeked past the giants who were blocking the light!" (Pert Beckmann 1987).
Established Member
Prince: "Why invoke Fitgerald's lengthening of the tube at right-angles to the direction of travel, or Lorentz's shortening of the tube pointing in the direction of travel?"
Well, Einsteinian relativity's great power as a theory is its ability to explain a huge range of phenomena. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is simply part of the theory, as necessary as the equivalence of mass and energy. Your question is much like saying, "Why not simply accept the Biblical value of pi, three? Why construct the whole structure of mathematical geometry?" Of course, geometry has such a broad range of applications that abandoning it for the sake of changing the value of pi would be ludicrous.
Established Member
There are other experiments and observations that confirm the motion of the earth. We don't need MM to do that. The simplest example is the measured parallax shift of stars. That is, we can see nearby stars shift their apparent position as the earth moves from one side of its orbit to another. Prince, explain how that happens if the earth is a stationary object and the stars fixed in their celestial sphere.
A better question is why assume there is a mysterious substance called ether that is exteremely stiff, permeates everything, yet allows matter to pass through it without a problem. Physicists were having doubts about the ether long before Einstein. It wasn't necessary to use it to explain electromagnetic effects, and since its existance couldn't be proven, it was discarded.
Established Member
If ether existed, gauge invariance would be pretty hard to come by. How does one deal with that, Prince?
Established Member
You know, I could have sworn that light stays at c even when you're moving relative to the earth. At which point you've either got your own personal ether (which could be a handy party trick, I suppose), or there isn't one. But then I've never quite grasped why people wanted an ether in the first place, in the same way that someone brought up with images of the Earth from space can fail to understand why people used to think it was flat.
Banned
Contrary to Eta C, parallax is no proof of a moving Earth. Neither is the Earth Bulge, Coriolis Forces, Foucault's Pendulum etc. Whether the universe rotates around the Earth, or the Earth spins on its axis and around the sun is indeterminable. It is a matter of the geometry of moving bodies and whatever grid reference we choose will give exactly the same results. The subject of geocentricity is held in such horror by orthodox science that a code word is preferred: "Mach's Principle".
Established Member
You misunderstand me prince. You are correct about the pendulum, etc, but parallax shift has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation. It is solely an effect of its orbit. Every star has a position in the sky (right ascention and hour). For nearby stars that position changes slightly as we move through the year. It's different in January than it is in July. If the earth were stationary we would observe no parallax shift.
The motion of the earth in it's orbit was well understood long before MM performed their experiment. You are wrong to think that such a measurement was the sole objective. The earth's motion is so well established, in fact, that when the MM null result was seen, the theory of electromagnetism was changed.
Banned
Parallax,retrograde,the seasons etc are fully explainable in the Tychonian, & even Ptolemaic models. If you believe in Relativity, then you are obliged to accept them as equally valid as any other model. See the diagrams in Bouw's book. "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference HAS NO PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE"! (Sir Fred Hoyle 1975, "Astronomy & Cosmology" p.416)
Established Member
Wrong wrong wrong. Not even wrong. Stellar parallax requires an orbit. And if you want to go to the complexities of a tychonic system to get that as opposed to copernican/keplerian I can only pity you. Not all theories are equally valid. The ptolemaic and tychonic models (not a theory any more even if they ever were) were discarded centuries ago precisely because they could not explain all of the observed phenomena without resorting to all sorts of complex modifications (epicycles, etc). A copernican solar system with elliptical orbits explains them all neatly. Same goes for relativity. You can't just deny it because it happens not to fit your particular world view. Too many phenomena (time dilation included) have been observed that match the predictions to discard it.
In any case, I leave this debate. Your mind is made up, so is mine. If you want to post once more to get the last word, no skin off my nose.
Established Member
Wise man, Eta C. There've been many debates about Bouw's Biblical geocentrist universe, and as far as I can see, it boils down to this:
Bouw, Selbrede, and Prince say: "If you believe in Relativity, then you are obliged to accept them [and geocentrism] as equally valid as any other model."
I would put it: "If you believe in Relativity, then you are obliged to accept them [and geocentrism] as equally valid as any other coordinate system."
Established Member
I do have a question. Where and who says that the world is the center of the universe? And why is this really so important? From what I've seen, the scientists of today have perfectly and reasonably explained why things are the way they are. Geocentric models step of the feet of many many people.
If we found a place with people in it, untouched by Geocentrism or Heliocentrism, and explained in full the different models, who would they side with?
Remember now, the Norse believed that the world (just Earth) was made from the body of the frost giant Ymir. Geocentrism stories sound like some kid's story from a firepit a long time ago.
Banned
Good bye Eta C. He's right though : parallax does require an orbit, and is automatically taken into account in the Tychonic model where the stars share in the sun's annual motion about the Earth. Also it can be derived as a secondary phenomenon in the Ptolemaic model where the stars are centered on the earth but that the sun's graviational or radiation field acts to drag the star's light along with it. However, if Eta C thinks that parallax is a "proof" of Heliocentricity, then he has found a disproof of Relativity! Well done. And in reply to Princeton about gauge invariance, there are ethers, and then there are aethers. The compatibility you seek is satisfied by the group of Dirac relativistic aethers, and any aethers that invoke and/or parallel their distinctive criteria. Several of the geocentric aether models overlap these particular criteria. You can consult with profit the work of David Bohm and Jean-Pierre Vigier on the matter of
Dirac relativistic aethers.
Order of Kilopi
I've thought for some time that Einstein should have had four Nobel Prizes:
- The one he actually won for the photoelectric effect
- The Brownian motion papers, also from 1905
- General relativity
- And he should have shared a prize with Lorentz and Poincare for special relativity
Established Member
Vermonter: "I do have a question. Where and who says that the world is the center of the universe? And why is this really so important?"
Fair questions. Here's a quote from Gerardus Bouw's Biblical Astronomer website:
"Astronomers, pastors, and educators in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church maintained the geocentric truths well into the twentieth century. They, with the reformers such as Luther, saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible."
"The second of these two concerns: how the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to 'up' and 'down;' through the question of just what the earth was 'orbiting' the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:"
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
"Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:"
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
-----
So, it's a particular group of Christian Bible literalists who say the Earth has to be the center of the universe. Gerardus Bouw, Mr. Selbrede, our own Prince, and possibly Yul, are all members of this brethren. And they think geocentrism is of extreme importance because they believe that a literal reading of the Bible is infallible and this reading, to them, indicates that the Earth is the center of the universe.
The link above the quote is to Bouw's page entitled "Why Geocentricity?". Bouw's Personal Testimony of Gerardus Bouw page is interesting for the insight into the personality and evolution of an individual dedicated to anti-science. On it he gives what I take as his credo, and a good candidate for the credo of young-Earth Bible literalists in general: "Science can never correct the Bible."
Established Member
That is right, so I don't understand positions such as EtaC's. No person who "believes" in general relativity has a physical reason to discount geocentrism.
OTOH, geocentrists do not believe in general relativity, so your last comment would not apply to them.
Thus, it boils down to belief. Some geocentrists have made physical arguments that purport to prove geocentrism, and those are usually easily countered. But the physics of general relativity cannot be used against geocentrism.
Established Member
This brings me to something I have never understood about geocentrism/geocentricity. Whether or not the Universe revolves around the Earth may be indeterminable by direct observation alone, but everything we understand about gravitation brings us to the inescapable conclusion that such a system is utterly impossible. Even just the Sun alone revolving around the Earth turns our proven knowledge of gravity on its head. But the entire mass of the cosmos revolving around the miniscule mass of the Earth? What new geocentric theory of gravitation can account for that outrageous scenario?
Matt
Established Member
I think one thing to remember is that the Christian God is three things: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. It does go back to the kid's story idea, tho...why would anyone want such a small place to be the center of the universe? Talk about being egotistical. Apparently God doesn't deal with things as we see it. He is supposed to be an almighty being, making the Earth the center of the Universe is an easy task.
However from a science POV...that's absolute rubbish and logical people would agree, like most of the BABB contributors.
Established Member
I was hoping you'd say that, because, Prince, Dirac's aether has the property that you cannot measure relative motion against it. It's the so-called "quantum foam". So, there you go, if you are measuring motion against something, it is not the "aether".
It shocks me that they overlook this very fundamental concept of Dirac's view of relativistic quantum mechanics. No matter, though, these people are all confirmed idiots anyway.Several of the geocentric aether models overlap these particular criteria. You can consult with profit the work of David Bohm and Jean-Pierre Vigier on the matter of
Dirac relativistic aethers.
Banned
To answer Jovianboy re gravity & the barycentric argument (“things revolve around the heaviest object”): The Earth
does NOT revolve around the Sun, but rather, the Earth and Sun both revolve around the CENTER OF MASS of the Earth-Sun system, which is quite a few miles from the sun’s central axis. One must factor in all objects, starting with the nearest stars, to recalculate the true center-of-mass. Once one has properly applied the barycentric argument to all other entities in the universe, the center-of-mass can easily be at the Earth’s location, making it impossible to disprove the geocentric hypothesis. The barycentric argument is only
properly applied when every object in the universe has been factored into the center-of-mass calculation, and THAT calculation has never been properly done. The barycentric argument can easily and fully support pure geocentricity.
Posting Permissions
