Re: The absolute/relational nature of spacetime


Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Yvon Sauvageau wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At http://www.rationalmechanics.com
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > > Ever since the Greek Antiquity, it has been debated whether physical
> > > motion is relational or absolute. In the absence of any clear
> > > resolution, all discourses on the subject have been confined to
> > > qualitative philosophical arguments. This article demonstrates
> > > mathematically that the laws of dynamics imply that motion is absolute.
> > > In addition, this article elucidates Newton's bucket phenomenon.
> >
> > You won't get a reputable journal to publish your contention (other
> > than in an 01 April issue) because it is so blatantly empirically
> > wrong. A huge body of work across a vast array of venues and scales -
> > without a single observational exception - says you are wrong. GPS
> > for instance, and
> >
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > No aether
> >
> > http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> Sure, if they are too busy to go beyond the contention. Every minimally
> substantial novelty in science looks like April's fool. But if they
> take the time to understand what problem is to be solved, and if they
> don't rely on misconceptions about the said problem, then their might
> be some hope. Provided they are not foolish enough to think it will
> never get solved. And provided they fully realize that a given solution
> has to come up some date or another.

Hi Yvon,
Reading your link, you've certainly cared and thought
a lot about the Mach Principle problem, to your credit.

You should realize a $billion experiment is currently
acquiring data to test Mach's Principle (MP) known as
*Gravity Probe b*, which is so far inconclusive.

See S. Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" pg 239-241, and find
Steven's remarks on *Newton's water bucket* and MP.

Also, AE's "Meaning of Relativity" pg 100.

Both these guys and now a few thousand more studied
exactly what you are, and very carefully.

For example, I may agree with your conclusion but
for different reasons, but most importantly, the
taxpayer funded GP-b deserves a concise synopsis
of the experiments conclusion.

Last I heard the data was classified, an unusual
step for NASA, why beats me...

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Quantcast