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

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

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

<blockquote><blockquote><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>Ufonaut99: 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.
</blockquote>AAF: I told you, once before, that 'high in the sky' is, by no means, ridiculous! </blockquote>
Nope, more wrong claims. As everyone can plainly see from the above quotes, I have never said that 'high in the sky' is ridiculous (just your claims of Parallax in that situation )

What's more interesting is your claim that S_1 (ALWAYS positioned over the NORTH pole) swings over Gothemburg due South

AAF
AAF

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:

Woo-hoo . . .

The Sun. high in the sky, above the Outback, out there,
is becoming, now, more & more, everyday, so HOT :

http://inhabitat.com/the-australian-out ... -pump-gas/

And all those Inland taipans are
so energized & happy!

I presume!

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

"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????"

Right!

Being 'high in the sky' is needed only for making the parallax circle
sufficiently visible, and for distinguishing that circle from
the conspicuously large circle of the horizon.

Surely, you can see the star Polaris Australis
from the city of Brisbane.

Now, why does the star Polaris Australis, as seen early in the evening,
appear, low in the southern sky, along the curved line between Brisbane & Hobart;
while, as seen in early morning, appear along the curved line between
Brisbane & Busselton?

The only simple answer to the above question, I assume, is that because
the earth is rotating around its geometrical axis
every 23 hours & 56 minutes.

Am I correct?

AAF
AAF

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: Just point your 'handy-dandy' camera towards the star Sigma
Octantis and see what will happen!" So you just made up some excuse about having
to be "high in the sky" with no justification whatsoever, even though it directly

No way . . .

The star Sigma Octantis does not contradict, in any way, my 'claims of parallax';
because the star Sigma Octantis does, indeed, have a measurable amount of parallax.

Allow me to explain it a little bit more clearly:

The circular motion of observers, due to the axial rotation of the earth,
causes the star Sigma Octantis to appear, as seen by them, to be
moving, above in the sky, in a circle whose angular area is directly proportional
to the angular area of their geographical latitude and inversely proportional
to the actual distance between Earth & the star Sigma Octantis.

And that is what 'the effect of parallax'

Recall what I told you before:

The angular area of the geographical latitude, always,
has its maximum value at the earth's equator.

And since the city of Brisbane is only 27.4698° south of the earth's
equator, you can, in principle, measure the parallax of the star Sigma Octantis,
from Brisbane, yourself.

Because, practically, I just can't measure the parallax of Sigma Octantis,
myself, and then show the final results to you, right here!

AAF
AAF

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

"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. "

Will a camera pointing towards the South remain always
pointing to the South?

Well; it depends on which one of the southern points
that camera is pointing to.

If the point, in question, is located on Earth, then, sure,
the camera will stay pointing towards it.

That is on one hand.

On the other hand, if the point, under consideration, is above in the sky,
then the camera will have to be adjusted periodically; otherwise, that camera
will photograph a circular trail in the sky, in which the star Polaris Australis
appears only once per day.

And that's the way it is!

AAF
AAF

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: 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"

The above statement of mine
is incomplete!

And that is because it was made before taking into account
the spectacular effect of light aberration.

Certainly, with regard to the effect of parallax, faraway celestial
objects always appear to absolutely motionless.

Because the amount of parallax is inversely proportional to the distance
between the observer and the celestial object, under observation.

However, upon taking the effect of light aberration into consideration,
celestial objects will always appear to make circles in the sky,
regardless of distance or how faraway those object
from the observer.

AAF
AAF

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

"- 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?"

Not really!

The parallax of a celestial object depends on distance and the angular
diameter of the observer's latitude.

But it does not depend, in any way, upon the location of that object
on the celestial sphere.

Do I have to explain this important point
once more?

AAF
AAF

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: I'm merely pointing out, here, the simple fact that the
numerical values of parallax vary inversely with distance." No, you were claiming
the opposite. As per the quote trail above, your "high in the sky" comment was your
- where the distance is SMALL."

There are no trails, in the video, because the camera must

Do you see those rotating landmarks around the little boy
and his merry go round?

Of course, you do!

Those rotating landmarks would have created a big mess with their trails,
in the above video, if the camera was not adjusted the right way.

And, now, here is a big question for you to answer:

How could those landmarks, in the aforementioned video, appear to rotate,
if the camera was at rest and not rotating around its axis with
the right amount of angular velocity?

That is a very important question, which requires
a very clear & good answer!

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

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,
AAF: The Sun. high in the sky, above the Outback, out there, is becoming, now, more & more, everyday, so HOT :
http://inhabitat.com/the-australian-out ... -pump-gas/
And all those Inland taipans are so energized & happy!
Wow, hadn't heard that about Oodnadatta - but it does get so hot out there, that sometimes the coolest place is Underground

Fortunately, those taipans don't come into the city that much (unlike the FunnelWebs - but fortunately I've never seen one of those in the wild)
The Kangaroos can get a bit energized as well !
AAF: Do I have to explain this important point once more?
Nope, because I have never confused the two (unlike comments such as "S_1 making one of these circles" ! )

The point remains: If your understanding of Parallax were correct, then by your own formula your claims about it should be increasingly visible at SMALL distances - such as the video.

You once made a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree (not in this thread ! ) - I can't find it now, but it was something like "If someone holds a position that is wrong, they'll end up making blatantly wrong statements to support it".

That video is of a plain and simple everyday experience, that echoes everybody's childhood memories. Everybody can see that the locations and mechanics of the video are self-evident ......

.... And that you have got them blatantly wrong.

Seriously.

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip- ... ching.html

For example :
AAF: In the case of the video, the camera is outside the disk and having it in view within a half circle and no more.
Go on then : In the video, at what timestamp does the disk move out of the half-circle view of the camera ???

Of course it DOESN'T ! It stays fixed in the same position in frame throughout all the revolutions - blatantly contrary to how you say Parallax behaves.
The people and trees in the background are only visible half-a-circle of course - but NOT THE DISK NOR THE CENTRAL POLE positioned along the axis of rotation.
AAF: The camera is on Terra firma outside the rotating disk; right?
One small statement, Two self-evident errors !

The camera is on Terra firma : WRONG
the rotating disk : WRONG (I will return to this in a later post )
AAF: And, now, here is a big question for you to answer: ... That is a very important question, which requires a very clear & good answer!
The location and state of the camera certainly are important - so I want YOU to arrive at the correct self-evident answers yourself.
So, temporarily forget about this discussion, what you think of Parallax, etc, and simply watch the video again fresh, and work out :

Q1) Where the camera is located (hint: it's NOT on Terra Firma )?
Q2) Is the camera being "continually adjusted" (in other words, to use our earlier description, is it on a motorized mount) ?
Q3) Is the camera facing that S_1 silver disk just once per revolution (ie. does the disk move out of view) ?

And one more question for you :
AAF: If the point, in question, is located on Earth, then, sure, the camera will stay pointing towards it. ...
if the point, under consideration, is above in the sky, then the camera will have to be adjusted periodically; otherwise, that camera will photograph a circular trail in the sky,
(Sticking with the north pole .....) OK, so let's say we build a great big office tower smack bang on the North pole, with each floor being 10m tall (the S_2'ians like a lot of head-room ! ). Let's call it the "NORTH Pole Tower"

(we can also say that a great slit is cut from Oslo through Lillehammer to the north pole, providing a direct line of sight to the entire tower )

The base of that tower is, of course, "located on earth", so we both agree that Alice in Oslo will always see the ground floor of the "NORTH Pole Tower" due NORTH of her, in line with Lillehammer.

What about, say, the 4th floor ? Does that 40 metres up qualify as "above in the sky" by your model, and so do you reckon that Alice would see it periodically swinging over Gothemburg ? No??? not high enough, maybe ? OK, so how high would be high enough ?

Q4) What is the lowest floor of the "NORTH Pole Tower" that Alice in Oslo WILL see periodically swing over Gothemburg due SOUTH of her?
ie. How high is your "above in the sky" ? If not the 4th floor, then what about the 400,000th floor ? Would Alice ever see THAT one swinging over Gothemburg ?

AAF
AAF

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:

WOW . . . WOW . . . WOW . . .

What a contrast!

This monstrous POLAR VORTEX is, currently,
hammering Trump's voters
& their neighbors TOO:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /95420726/

HOLY SMOKES!

You can't blame that GUY, now, for being TOO
can you?

..............................................................................................................................................................................................

""AAF: As far as Einstein's S_1 & S_2 are concerned, my arguments have been, so far, quite strong."

At 1am, S_1 is above the NORTH pole (along the axis of rotation), so our observer in Oslo
has to face NORTH to see it - directly in line with Lillehammer."

GREAT PICTURE . . .

And I mean it!

Does the curved line between Oslo, Lillehammer, and Alaska remain the same
throughout the rotational period of Planet Earth?

Absolutely . . .

There can be no doubt about that.

Does the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole, appear, to observers in Oslo,
to rotate in the sky?

Certainly!

Does the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole, appear, to observers in Oslo,
to rotate around its geometrical axis?

No . . .

Absolutely not!

Why and because of what does the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole, appear,
to observers in Oslo, NOT to be rotating around its geometrical axis?

It's because of the simultaneous presence of two phenomena:

The Parallax & Light Aberration.

Each of these two phenomena makes the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole,
appear, to observers in Oslo, to rotate, as one single unit, along
the circumference of a circle in the sky above the North Pole.

Does the combined effect of Parallax & Light Aberration make the spotted
object S_1, above the North Pole, appear, to observers in Oslo, to rotate,
as one single unit, along the circumference of a circle in the sky above
the North Pole, as well?

Sure . . . why not . . .

When you add a circle to another circle,
you get a combined circle.

AAF
AAF

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

"Your argument is that by 1pm (half a revolution), despite S_1 STILL
being above the NORTH pole (along the axis of rotation), our observer has to face
due SOUTH to see it over Gothemburg (along the red line)."

Does the curved line between Oslo, Lillehammer, and Alaska remain the same
throughout the rotational period of Planet Earth?

Yes . . . absolutely . . .

We can have no doubt about that.

Is it possible for the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole, to appear,
to observers in Oslo, sometimes over Lillehammer,

It's more than possible for the spotted object S_1, above the North Pole,
to appear, to observers in Oslo, sometimes over Lillehammer,

But why & how?

Because Lillehammer & Alaska are too close to Oslo's observers;
but the spotted object S_1 is so faraway from them.

It's like observing nearby landmarks against the background
of a faraway mountain.

The slightest movement, on the part of the observer, can change the viewing
angles to those nearby landmarks very quickly; while, by contrast, the faraway
mountain seems to have its viewing angle unchanged except through making
a substantial amount of displacement from the initial point of observation.

So, is the above illustration, by Colleague Ufonaut99,
correct?

Yes; correct; but, unfortunately,
it's incomplete!

Because it does not show the important cases, in which, the curved line between Oslo,
Lillehammer, & Alaska is pointing at right angles to its initial direction;
i.e., the cases, in which the spotted object S_1 appears to switch from being
above Lillehammer to being above Alaska; and vice versa.