On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:33:50 -0800, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I note the revised Subject: line.
>
> The original, for those with threaded newsreaders that start a new entry
> in the table of contents with each change of subject line, was:
>
> Subject: baby bird caught in amber
>
> with OP by Jillery, whom Tony (whom I will be addressing directly below)
> consistently confuses with Harshman, starting with the new Subject:
> line.
Since the content has shifted (almost completely) from the original
subject line I see no reason (whatsoever) to retain the subject line. A
threaded newsreader typically does not use the subject line as reference;
never has (as far as I know). I've used Forte's Agent with Windows and
it maintained threading with subject line changes and I now use Pan with
Linux and it handles threading as well with subject changes.
"They" complain if the ice cream is too cold and I don't care.
>
>
> By the way, Tony, both Harshman and Jillery criticize me for not using a
> threaded newsreader [or whatever the correct term is].
They (likely) criticize me for breathing. I follow the arguments where
they lead and change the subject line to fit the content. It is as simple
as that. My suspicion has always been that a subject line which doesn't
represent the content is cover when things go badly.
snip
>
>
>> > I take it you are referring to behavior not to be found on this
>> > thread, such as his stubborn adherence to Tycho Brahe's "improvement"
>> > on the old pre-Copernican Ptolemaic system.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here Nyikos gets a small detail wrong. Bessel's observation of
>> parallax in 1838 rendered Tycho Brahe's model failed. So I've never
>> held Tycho's Brahe's model. Though I do hold to a minor modification
>> of it.
>
> So what's the modification?
As brilliant as you are I'd think it was obvious. If the star field's
relative motion (as positioned in the Tycho Brahe model) wouldn't result
in parallax observations from Earth what would need to change? I'll
leave that as an exercise in your spare time.
>
>
>> And it's
>> not really clear that the Copernican Model was a dramatic improvement
>> on the Ptolemic one.
>
> It got rid of one epicycle in every planetary orbit (besides that of the
> earth, which never was given one). That's an advantage even from your
> unusual POV.
I wrote that it wasn't a "dramatic" improvement.
The history of science aspects are often necessary to discovering why
scientists proceed as they currently do. However, the fact that the
Copernican Model had a few less epicycles is hardly an indicator of its
truthlikeness. It definitely doesn't prove that the heliocentric model
is either true or self-evidently true.
And we'll see (below) how easy it is to prove that the Sun is at rest
with respect to the Earth.
>>
>> Is the heliocentric model self evident? Copernicus's book was
>> published in 1543 yet Michelson-Morley were still searching for
>> scientific proof that the Earth moved 344 years later. And
>> unsuccessfully I might add. Einstein had to introduce two new laws of
>> nature *by fiat* to "re- interpret the Michelson-Morley results.
>
> One was the claim that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
> Have you ever seen an experiment refuting this?
[Note: This requires some introduction but the shorter answer can be
found beginning at para. 5]
1. People have been misled to believe some romantic notion that Einstein-
the-genius thought up SR and GR while contemplating nature in the duldrums
of his Patent Office. This is rubbish. Einstein instead was
contemplating the serious problems for Copernicanism introduced by the
experiments conducted by Fizeau, Airy and Michelson-Morley 18-50 years
earlier. By the failure of Fresnel's Ether Drag theory to save things and
the one glimmering light offered by Lorentz 10 years earlier (1905 being
the reference year). Now let's proceed.
2. SR included two formal postulates:
Postulate 1: the laws of physics are same in all inertial frames
Postulate 2: the speed of light is the same for all observers
3. However, preceding these postulates Einstein was forced to go along
with the only solution offered to the Michelson-Morley problem----
Lorentz's solution: matter in motion contracts (the famous Lorentz
Transformation). However, Einstein (and Lorentz before him) realized
that if matter contracted then mass and time had to vary as well
(otherwise the equations didn't balance). These were forced elements and
not the genius of Einstein.
4. This left the capstone to the fantasy world created by Einstein.
Since length, mass, and time were forced to vary (with motion) Einstein
needed a fixed, unchangeable yard stick otherwise the fantasy world was
useless as far as a scientist was concerned. Light's speed had to be the
fixed yard stick; it had to be fixed **REGARDLESS** of motion. This was
the next new "law of nature" invented out of necessity.
5. So To answer your question: All of the interferometer experiments
disproved Einstein's second postulate beginning with Michelson-Morley up
to Dayton Miller's. Relativists bring in the Lorentz Transformation to
make the necessary "adjustments" and voila, the disproof is properly
corrected.
6. Unfortunately the relativists ran into a problem with Sagnac. His
rotating apparatus clearly showed that light speed was not a constant.
Relativists couldn't exactly apply the Lorentz correction to Sagnac's
rotating experimental setup and as such Sagnac was ignored by Einstein.
Einstein's followers retorted that Sagnac was not an inertial system. At
the very least Sagnac demonstrated that the Lorentz correction and the
supposed fixed light "yard stick" were not universal laws.
7. So I suspect that there has never been a modern observation
disproving SR's second postulate because (a) non inertial systems are
ignored and (b) Einstein's new law of nature (length contraction enforced
by a mathematical contrivance-Lorentz Transformation) is ensuring that it
won't. It's mathematics (the Lorentz Transformation) triumphing over
reality. Keep in mind that there is no physical theory explaining how any
atomic structure contracts merely by virtue of motion. Lorentz actually
proposed a physical explanation but Einstein found it wanting and tossed
it out when he disposed of a "material" ether.
>
> Special relativity is based on this one new law. Is there really a new
> law involved in general relativity, or only a shift in point of view
> like that between your model of the universe and the standard model?
Read above.
>
>
>> Perhaps Nyikos can prove that the Sun is at rest relative to the Earth?
>> That would be a worthwhile addition to the forum.
>
> Perhaps you will prove that the earth is at rest relative to the sun?
> That would be a revolutionary addition to any forum.
1. As I suspected; saying heliocentricism is self evident isn't nearly
as easy as proving it.
2. Michelson-Morley proved that the Earth was at rest. George Airy's
stellar light experiments demonstrated that it was the stars moving and
the Earth at rest. So disturbing were Airy's results (like that of
Michelson-Morley) that his experiment was dubbed, "Airy's Mistake." This
didn't refer to an error in his apparatus or readings from it. It was a
mistake because it did NOT support heliocentricism. Like Michelson-
Morley, George Airy was a heliocentricist and he was trying to prove the
Earth was moving. But the results showed that it was the Earth at rest.
3. The Lorentz Transformation eventually came to Airy's rescue as well.
4. There is way to resolve the matter. Put a Michelson-Morley
interferometer on the moon or even in a Shuttle in low Earth orbit. If
it measures the correct orbital speed without the Lorentz Transformation
then the original, unadjusted Michelson-Morley results were correct. And
heliocentricism is false. This has been suggested to NASA and other
space agencies. None will consider the experiment. Wonder why?
>
> Since you think it is, how do you escape the parallax paradox
> [paradoxical only from you
The geometry of the "neo" Tychonian model is identical to the
heliocentric and so parallax observations are identical. It's as easy as
that.