That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
A consequence of this movememt of Earth is that save for one angle,
light does NOT travel the distance marked out between any two points on Earth.
That is because along the line AB, when light starts from A, the point B
has shifted from the original point when that light reaches B.
This may seem obvious now, but as a matter of fact it has been totally overlooked until 2005, when Arindam found this subtle basic.
Now, the nulls do happen in the MMI
The Earth it moves.
Bertietaylor
That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
So you misunderstand even that.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
So you misunderstand even that.
Motion is relative, and 'the Earth moves in space'
is meaningless,
Jan
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:22:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
So you misunderstand even that.
Motion is relative, and 'the Earth moves in space'
is meaningless,
Jan
As Arindam said long ago, Einsteinians are Aristotlean chaps who despite
all evidence to the contrary maintain the Earth is still
Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :
The Earth it moves.
No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
extended to all of modern physics.
The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
meters per second.
Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.
You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.
Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo
said
it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting
in
his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.
Well, in relativity, it's no different.
I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
space, approaching mine at incredible speed.
A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.
The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest. Today, we
could
observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements,
yet
nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.
So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not
moving
in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an invariant manner.
Bertietaylor
R.H.
Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :
The Earth it moves.
No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
extended to all of modern physics.
The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
meters per second.
Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.
You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.
Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo
said
it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting
in
his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.
Well, in relativity, it's no different.
I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
space, approaching mine at incredible speed.
A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.
The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest.
could
observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements,
yet
nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.
So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not
moving
in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an invariant manner.
Bertietaylor
R.H.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
How can the Earth move at 30km/sec and still be said to be at rest!
No wonder Arindam thinks you are a totally crazy lot, you stupid e=mcc
Bertietaylor
Le 04/06/2025 à 07:26, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
How can the Earth move at 30km/sec and still be said to be at rest!
Pour un observateur placé dans une galaxie lointaine, la terre n'est
pas
au repos, elle se déplace
à des milliers de kilomètres par seconde.
Mais la réciproque est tout aussi vrai.
Hormis les effet de l'accélération centripète, il serait impossible de savoir qui de la terre ou du soleil bouge par rapport à l'autre.
Je pense que tu n'as pas compris ni Galilée, ni Poincaré.
Il n'y a pas dans l'univers de REPOS ABSOLU, de BASE absolue, d'éther.
Tout le monde est pour soi-même au repos dans l'univers.
Dire : "Il existe peut-être dans l'univers un point au repos absolu, et
il ne bouge pas." est une absurdité, puisque le mouvement absolu
n'existe
pas. Tous les physiciens le savent : la notion de mouvement est relatif
à
quelque chose, comme toute conscience est conscience de quelque chose.
Poincaré ira plus loin : "Le temps et les longueurs sont relatifs".
Le docteur Hachel ira encore plus loin, et proposera l'universalité de l'équation a=(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) non seulement pour les longueurs, les temps, les fréquences électro-magnétiques, mais encore
les distances cosmiques.
Exemple, je me déplace à 0.8c direct vers l'axe terre-lune, quelle est
la distance terre-lune?
Ceux qui n'ont jamais appris la relativité de Poincaré disent D=300.000 kms environ.
Ceux qui ont appris Poincaré mais n'ont pas appris Hachel (comme quoi
les plus grands pontes de la physique moderne peuvent être de parfait crétins) disent 180000 kms.
Seuls les plus intelligents (je sais même pas si l'on peut les compter
sur les doigts) vous dirons
qu'il faut appliquer D'+D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) avec cosµ=-1 et que cette distance subit un effet élastique positif (et non négatif).
Elle devient 900000 kms.
Les autres disjonctent, et on se demande bien
No wonder Arindam thinks you are a totally crazy lot, you stupid e=mcc
The correct equation is : E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²).
A rest (Vo=0, Vr=0) : E=mc².
Bertietaylor
R.H.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 499 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:29:26 |
Calls: | 9,839 |
Files: | 13,764 |
Messages: | 6,194,388 |
Posted today: | 1 |