Re: Neophyte question.
- From: "oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2007 09:05:36 -0700
On Mar 30, 9:04 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Dave Reckoning" <J...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r-udnYpxc7gY35HbnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been nagged for years by the following:
Let's say that the earth started spinning really fast on it's axis. So
fast
that we all flew off because of centripetal force.
Likely more correct, is to say that it is because of inertial force.
What would it have to be spinning relative to in order for this to happen?
The Sun? The "Universe"? It's own sub atomic particles?
We measure that it is spinning relative to the distant stars. From there on
we move to metaphysics. After some reflection, Newton and also Einstein held
that this implies some kind of physical "space". As Einstein put it in 1920:
"the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty
space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative
velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken
as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be
able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as
something real, Newton objectivises space. [...] this conception of the
ether to which we are led [...] not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them." -http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
If the earth was the only thing in the universe, would it be possible for
it
to spin?
It depends on what you mean with "thing". If there is nothing else (not even
"space"), obviously it cannot spin.
Harald
Harry,how do you manage it,how do you manage to go all these years
being clever when a single paragraph from Newton makes you look a lot
less clever than even Albert was.Is there some legal requirement for
people over 50 to carry on waltzing to a 1905 tune long after the
party is over.
Albert said Newton objectives space hence aether/absolute space but
the powdered wig went out of his way to explicitly state what he
thought about aether -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
I actually think it is amazing the way you and your buddies here can
still carry on and have Albert dump aether back on Newton as 'absolute
space' and then reject it all over again -
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential
is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not
perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real. " Albert.
The joker in the pack is actually John Flamsteed insofar as Johnny
took a particularly awful shortcut in his quest to hitch the Earth's
rotation to celestial sphere geometry.While it is nice and all to see
where Newton took that shortcut,the good news is that the actual
principles which correlate clocks with axial rotation at exactly 24
hour/360 degrees do two wonderful things - they restore much of
Copernican heliocentricity and its refinements and they highlight what
happens when people lose the plot.
.
- References:
- Neophyte question.
- From: Dave Reckoning
- Re: Neophyte question.
- From: harry
- Neophyte question.
- Prev by Date: Re: question about FTL equation
- Next by Date: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Previous by thread: Re: Neophyte question.
- Next by thread: Re: Neophyte question.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
