Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
88 online now:
Parasomnium (1 member, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,159 Year: 6,271/6,534 Month: 464/650 Week: 2/232 Day: 2/28 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?
Posts: 20969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1

Message 11 of 54 (761306)
06-30-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 12:46 PM

Have you posted a single word of your own in this thread?

In your previous thread (Movie - "The Principle"), once you stopped cut-n-pasting all we got was irrelevant nonsense like, "Substance is constituted into existence in such a manner as not to require the support of another being in its mode of existence," and non-answers like, "I'm very tempted to do Nope/Yup, but that would not be nithe."

I don't think you're here to discuss but to promote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:46 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

Posts: 20969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1

Message 51 of 54 (762656)
07-14-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:03 AM

Suzanne Romano writes:

In order to prove the motion of the Earth,...

The motion of the Earth had already been proven by the 1880's. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of motion of the Earth through the luminiferous ether. You supposedly researched this. Wherever did you get such a strange idea that Michelson-Morley was an attempt to prove that the Earth moves?

The new experiment took place in 1887, and the results were even more devastating for heliocentrists: no calculable displacement was measured. They had not a shred of evidence that the Earth is in motion.

The Michelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with proving heliocentrism. Your statement that there's no evidence for the Earth's motion reflects great ignorance.

...since Fresnel's equation is entirely hypothetical and supported by not a shred of empirical evidence.

This, too, reflects great ignorance. Fresnel's equations are still in use today.

Scene VI contains a sampling of astonishing quotes which admit the clear implications of the evidence.

Translation: "Scene VI contains quotes taken out of context to make it seem that the speakers were making points they never actually made."

Lorentz's Attempt to Save Heliocentrism: This crisis for heliocentrism caused Lorentz to posit a new theory.

You're writing historical fiction. Neither Lorentz nor any other involved scientists of the day ever doubted heliocentrism.

Thus Lorentz's equation can be employed to change or “transform” the results of any experiment designed to test the motion of the Earth. His equation is, however, entirely theoretical; it has never been physically demonstrated to be true - no “contraction of matter having ever been demonstrated or measured."

This would be incorrect, and who are you quoting anyway? See the section of Experimental Verifications in the Wikipedia article on Length Contraction.


Edited by Percy, : Wordsmith first para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:03 AM Suzanne Romano has not replied

Posts: 20969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1

Message 52 of 54 (762672)
07-14-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:06 AM

Suzanne Romano writes:

Raison d'etre for the Theory of Special Relativity: Albert Einstein was yet another Copernican determined to introduce a scientific explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that would save the heliocentric thesis - another Copernican unwilling to follow the evidence where it actually led.

You're again writing historical fiction. Heliocentrism, or more accurately and generally, elliptical orbits around a common center of gravity, has been confirmed nine ways from Sunday. What Michelson-Morley sought was evidence of a hypothesized luminiferous ether and the behavior of light relative to it. The experiment's failure brought into question their ideas of how light behaved relative to the luminiferous ether. It should have also brought into question the existence of the luminiferous ether itself, but apparently it did not, believing as they did that light traveling as waves required a medium.

He admitted as much in 1924: “Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.”

You've somehow managed to ignore the context to completely misinterpret Einstein. He's talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, and he says so right in your quote where he refers to "Michelson's null result." When he says he believes that "the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment" he's referring to experiments like Michelson-Morley. He's not saying we can't look off into the heavens and figure out the motions of suns, planets and moons. You can find the full text of Einstein's article here: How I created the theory of relativity

Einstein would not allow for the possibility of an immobile Earth. He would retain the heliocentric thesis,...

This is certainly true, given the copious evidence that nothing anywhere is immobile and that the planets orbit the sun.

...and simply dispense with proof.

And this is certainly false, again given the copious evidence that nothing anywhere is immobile and that the planets orbit the sun.

Because all previous experiments failed to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether, Einstein was forced to choose between three possible scenarios: (1) the Earth is not moving through the aether; or (2) the Earth is moving and carrying the aether with it; or (3) the aether does not exist and the Earth is moving through empty space. Choice 1 was unthinkable to Einstein and his colleagues, because they were unwilling to posit an explanation for the Michelson experiment that demonstrated a motionless Earth.

It is obviously untrue that Einstein considered it unthinkable that "the Earth is not moving through the aether" since in your previous paragraph you just quoted him saying, "Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect..."

Yet the solution offered by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was no more than a contradiction; for it held simultaneously that the aether is a perfect fluid with no friction; and that the aether exerts enough pressure on matter to contract it.

The ideas put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz were based upon electromagnetism. Friction played no role.

The only absolute in the theory of relativity is its categorical incapacity to prove the heliocentric thesis.

This is a very strangely wrong thing to say. In improving upon the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics, relativity provided the ability to more accurately calculate the motions of celestial bodies. Mercury is a notable example. Relativity is why we can do incredibly accurate things like send the Messenger probe to Mercury to map its surface and finally to crash into Mercury on April 30th of this year.

Specifics in the Einsteinian Novelty: Einstein posited an aetherless model of the universe; thus he could not rely on the Lorentz-Fitzgerald "aether causes moving bodies to contract" theory. Nevertheless he did maintain that the west-directed arm of Michelson’s interferometer had contracted, and that this contraction made it impossible to detect the movement of the Earth.

No, this is dead wrong. Einstein never postulated that either arm of the Michelson-Morley experiment contracted. Both arms being motionless with respect to the measurement apparatus (the interferometer), neither would experience any relative contraction. Any perceived contraction could only be apparent to an observer in motion relative to the arms.

I won't comment on the rest of this particular paragraph as it builds upon your misunderstanding to become hopelessly confused.

But concerning what you botched earlier you later quote Einstein clarifying the point: "Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun." In other words, for a co-ordinate system at rest with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment (e.g., the Earth), it is not shortened. And for a co-ordinate system in motion with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment (e.g., the sun), it is shortened.

...and b) dreams up a purely imaginary device he calls "relative coordinate system," to serve as the fixed reference frame he just eliminated. This is a violation of the Law of Contradiction...

The contradiction is an artifact of your own confusion. Relativity holds that there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. There are only relative reference frames. Relative reference frames are not fixed. They can't be fixed because there is nothing for them to be fixed relative to.


Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing my next to last para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2015 5:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022