You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

Anonymous
Anonymous

October 25th, 2016, 7:52 pm #171




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm




Hawking is a Demagogue and Idiot.
Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

October 26th, 2016, 3:00 am #172




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm












Thank you . . .


Thank you very much.


Obviously, 'STRIDING INTO HISTORY' is not easy:

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/06/ ... omination/








…......................................................................................................................................................................




"Look, let's watch that 'little' merry-go-round video AGAIN:
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip- ... ching.html



"S_1 Szczepan" sitting motionless on that non-rotating S_1 silver disk, would certainly see [the camera] rotating around him, but would that mean: * We see him in orbit around [the camera]? Of course NOT - just look at the video; that S_1 silver disk stays in the same place in the field of view * He is rotating around his own geometrical axis? Of course NOT - that S_1 silver disk hos no absolute rotation."






Would that mean 'we see him in orbit around the camera'?


The correct answer to the above question is, of course,
YES!





Absolutely, . . .


IF Szczepan is sitting motionless on that non-rotating S_1, then we will
see him rotating around the camera.


That is what Reflection Symmetry is all about:

https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/symmetry.html


However, Einstein, in his 1916 paper, asserted that reflection symmetry would make
Object S_1 appear to rotate around its geometrical axis due to
the axial rotation of Object S_2.


But parallax and light aberration prove, beyond the reasonable doubt, that Einstein's
assertion, concerning axial rotation, is demonstrably wrong.





















Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

October 28th, 2016, 3:00 am #173




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm












""AAF: With regard to Einstein's S_1, if the rotating camera, on Einstein's S_2, is left alone to fend for itself, then, it will point, with absolute certainty, towards S_1 just once per rotation." Directly contradicted by the plain simple mechanics of rotation, as everyone can plainly see from the video that S_1 is obviously ALWAYS positioned in FRONT of the camera."









Is "S_1 obviously ALWAYS positioned in FRONT of the camera"?


Not a chance!







The position of Einstein's S_1 with respect to Einstein's S_2 is very similar
to the position of the star Sigma Octantis with respect
to the city of Brisbane:

http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/polaust.html


So, let's just ask Colleague Ufonaut99 to point his 'handy-dandy'
camera towards the star POLARIS AUSTRALIS and find out
for himself what will happen!























Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

October 30th, 2016, 3:00 am #174




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm












""AAF: Why is that? Because Einstein's S_1 is high in the sky!" To suggest that that S_1 disk would ever swing behind the camera (needing the camera to rotate)
if only it was high enough is ridiculous."







Just point your 'handy-dandy' camera towards the star Sigma Octantis
and see what will happen!







In short, Einstein's S_1 can ALWAYS be positioned in FRONT of Alice camera on
Einstein's S_2, if and only if Einstein's S_1 & Einstein's S_2 are EITHER
stationary with respect to each other, OR Einstein's S_1
is a geosynchronous satellite of Einstein's S_2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_satellite








Reply
Share

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

October 30th, 2016, 8:36 am #175




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm




Hi AAF,

You know, you're right I can fully understand and accept what you say. That is not to say that I am wrong, since I haven't disagreed with your sentiments as such previously

Of course, in all the above, I am talking ONLY about your comment "We would not want to take any blame for it, if that GUY, somehow, manages to get the People's Permission for living 4 or more years inside the White House! "

Sorry, but everything else you say (about S_1, S_2, etc) is, yes, blatantly false, since it violates the basic common-sense mechanics of rotation, as is clearly shown in that video.


AAF: if the observer does not adjust periodically the direction of the camera to keep pointing to S_1, then the camera will go with S_2 and will point towards S_1 just once per rotation.
...
Is "S_1 obviously ALWAYS positioned in FRONT of the camera"? Not a chance!
...
IF Szczepan is sitting motionless on that non-rotating S_1, then we will see him rotating around the camera.
All claims that are directly contradicted by the video.

Look at it AGAIN :
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip- ... ching.html

Note that :
* the observer does NOT adjust periodically the direction of the camera
* Does the camera point towards that S_1 silver disk just once per rotation ? OF COURSE NOT as everyone can see with their own eyes !
* Is that S_1 silver disk ALWAYS positioned in FRONT of the camera ? YES as everyone can see with their own eyes !
* Do we see that S_1 silver disk (or imagining Szczepan sitting on it) "rotating around the camera." ? OF COURSE NOT; S_1 disk (and therefore Szczepan) is clearly ALWAYS positioned in FRONT of the camera
AAF: Einstein, in his 1916 paper, asserted that reflection symmetry would make Object S_1 appear to rotate around its geometrical axis due to the axial rotation of Object S_2.
And in the video, does that S_1 silver disk "appear to rotate around its geometrical axis due to the axial rotation of Object S_2" ? YES, OF COURSE IT DOES as everyone can see with their own eyes !

All your claims are just plain WRONG. Seriously, how much more evidence do you need than this ACTUAL VIDEO FOOTAGE of them all being WRONG ??

To date, your only reply has been :
<blockquote><blockquote>AAF: Why is that? Because Einstein's S_1 is high in the sky!
ufonaut: To suggest that that S_1 disk would ever swing behind the camera (needing the camera to rotate)
if only it was high enough is ridiculous. ... And note there is nothing in [parallax] about needing to be "high in the sky" In fact, that formula means parallax should INCREASE with smaller distances (and of course, that video IS a small distance) - right ????
</blockquote>AAF: Just point your 'handy-dandy' camera towards the star Sigma Octantis and see what will happen! </blockquote>

So you just made up some excuse about having to be "high in the sky" with no justification whatsoever, even though it directly contradicts your own claims of parallax.

And if I point my camera (fixed stationary on earth with a non-rotating mount) towards Sigma Octantis aka Polaris Australis (or the Southern Pole Star), I would have to point it towards the South (NEVER towards the north) and Sigma Octantis would always stay in view - JUST AS THAT S_1 SILVER DISK DOES.
AAF: If Einstein's S_1 is too faraway, Einstein loses, as well, because faraway celestial objects always appear to be absolutely motionless!
Hey, what a surprise
- That S_1 silver disk (positioned along the axis of revolution) is not "in orbit" around the camera even though it is close
- Both Polaris and Sigma Octantis (both positioned along the axis of revolution) are not "in orbit" around the camera even though they are faraway (nor necessarily "high in the sky")

Gee, looks like the common factor is "positioned along the axis of revolution" rather than "faraway", wouldn't you agree ?
Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

November 1st, 2016, 3:00 am #176




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm











HiUfonaut99:



It seems, to me, that Donald may, well,
be a great GIFT from Heaven to Hillary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7gM6dT1nxo








…...............................................................................................................................................................................




""AAF: if Einstein's S_1 is not too faraway from Einstein's S_2 as Polaris from Earth, then George will see Einstein's S_1 swing periodically over Stockholm east, Lillehammer north, Gothemburg south, and London west." And "that is because the parallax circle of Einstein's S_1, ... " So no, you can't just make up new physical laws, just to try to avoid having your claims testable."






I'm not making up any new physical law!







I'm merely pointing out, here, the simple fact that the numerical values of parallax
vary inversely with distance.


And so, if Einstein's S_1 is too close to Einstein's S_2, then the parallax circle
of the former, in the sky over the latter, will become quite big.


And conversely, if if Einstein's S_1 is too faraway from Einstein's S_2, then the parallax
circle of Einstein's S_1, in the sky above Einstein's S_2,
will become very tiny.


And that is all!






















Reply
Share

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

November 1st, 2016, 10:08 am #177




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm




Hi AAF,

Well, it was the Melbourne Cup - "The Race that stops the nation" - today. It certainly stopped Melbourne, as they got a public holiday out of it !
My hero is Pravda No, not the russian newspaper ! The horse, who one year so epitomised "the race that stops the nation" by doing just that - simply just stopping Mid-Race
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Ufonaut99: As evidenced by that video, since the camera is clearly fixed (not being adjusted, nor counter-rotating), is your claim that "<font color="#800080">the camera will go with S_2 and will point towards S_1 just once per rotation" valid ? YES or NO.
Hint: Clearly, the answer remains NO !

</font>
AAF (oct 16th): With regard to Einstein's S_1, if the rotating camera, on Einstein's S_2, is left alone to fend for itself, then, it will point, with absolute certainty, towards S_1 just once per rotation. Why is that? Because Einstein's S_1 is high in the sky!
</blockquote>Ufonaut99: To suggest that that S_1 disk would ever swing behind the camera (needing the camera to rotate) if only it was high enough is ridiculous.

So no, you can't just make up new physical laws, just to try to avoid having your claims testable.

</blockquote>AAF: I'm merely pointing out, here, the simple fact that the numerical values of parallax vary inversely with distance.
</blockquote>

No, you were claiming the opposite. As per the quote trail above, your "high in the sky" comment was your answer to my question about why your claimed effects are not visible in the video - where the distance is SMALL.

If your claims about Parallax - and therefore, your claims against Einstein - had ANY credibility WHATSOEVER, then by your own reasoning they should be making a clearly visible effect at short distances - such as that video.

As everyone can clearly see, THEY DO NOT.
Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

November 3rd, 2016, 3:00 am #178




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm












Hi, Ufonaut99:



What happened to Pravda?


http://www.news.com.au/sport/superracin ... fd82514c94







…...........................................................................................................................................................................




"There is nothing wrong with my 'understanding of Parallax': theta = 2*arctan(R/d). And that is it!" .... And note there is nothing in that formula about needing to be "high in the sky" In fact, that formula means parallax should INCREASE with smaller distances (and of course, that video IS a small distance) - right???? So even by your own terms, the video is clearly an ideal test case for your claims of Parallax - and therefore of course, are totally busted. And THAT is it!"






Surely, the above formula means parallax should INCREASE
with smaller distances.


No one, here, is arguing against that.


I presume!







However, if the variable d ,in the equation: [theta = 2*arctan(R/d)],
becomes very small, i.e., NOT very "high in the sky", then Einstein's S_1
will become very close to the center of the observer's geographical latitude,
on Einstein's S_2; and hence it will be projected on the other side of that
latitude's circle.


As a result, Einstein's S_1 cannot, in the case of small distances, have
its own orbital circle high in the sky.


And that is all!
























Reply
Share

AAF
AAF

November 5th, 2016, 3:00 am #179




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm








"Sorry, but everything else you say (about S_1, S_2, etc) is, yes, blatantly false, since it violates the basic common-sense mechanics of rotation, as is clearly shown in that video".






Actually, the above 'super-duper' video shows - and quite clearly I may add -
that everything I've said, so far, about Einstein's S_1 & S_2 is true!







In particular, the LINE, between the center and the periphery of the rotating disc,
is sweeping the entire horizon from the west, to the south, to the east, to the north,
and to the west again; exactly as I pointed out many times before.












Reply
Share

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

November 5th, 2016, 1:54 pm #180




It has been one hundred years since the publication of Einstein's general theory of relativity in May 1916. In a paper recently published in EPJ Plus, Norwegian physicist Øyvind Grøn from the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences and his co-author Torkild Jemterud demonstrate that the rotational motion in the universe is also subject to the theory of relativity. Imagine a person at the North pole who doesn't believe the Earth rotates. As she holds a pendulum and can observe the stars in her telescope, she remarks that the swinging plane of the pendulum and the stars rotate together. Newton, who saw the world as a classical physicist, would have pointed out that it is the Earth that rotates. However, if we assume the general principle of relativity is valid, the Earth can be considered as being at rest while the swinging plane of the pendulum and the night sky are rotating. In fact, the rotating mass of the observable part of the universe causes the river of space--which is made up of free particles following the universe's expansion--to rotate together with the stars in the sky. And the swinging plane of the pendulum moves together with the river of space.










https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120254.htm




AAF: video shows .. that everything I've said, so far, about Einstein's S_1 & S_2 is true! In particular, the LINE, between the center and the periphery of the rotating disc,
No, Your claims that you have repeatedly and consistently made have been quite explicit :
AAF: if the observer does not adjust periodically the direction of the camera to keep pointing to S_1, then the camera will go with S_2 and will point towards S_1 just once per rotation.
....
Since Szczepan is stationary at the center of the spinning 3-metre radius merry-go-round, then Alice, ... must always see Szczepan, ... constantly rotating in a circle around Alice herself.
....
if Einstein's S_1 is not too faraway from Einstein's S_2 as Polaris from Earth, then George will see Einstein's S_1 swing periodically over Stockholm east, Lillehammer north, Gothemburg south, and London west.
Your entire argument against Einstein depends on your claims that (for the merry-go-round (*) as for the celestial bodies) the camera on S_2 must rotate to follow S_1.

The video shows clearly and blatantly that those claims - and therefore, your arguments - are just plain WRONG.

(*) Where I grew up, I called those things in the local parks (and in the video) merry-go-rounds, so since I introduced them into this discussion, I claim naming rights <img alt="Smiling" width="36" height="44" src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/yello ... oticon.gif">
Reply
Share