Mail Archive

Still Earth

• Subject: Still Earth
• From: Ray T
• Date: Sat Jun 24 08:20:32 1995
• Message-Id: id532

Dear Ray

I like your reply. And I also think there are a some good articles in the thread.
I am glad to hear Jonathan is well respected in the field. I am very happy with
the result because many people contributed and there was not too much nonsense
overall. It drifted away from my original article, concentrating only on the
validity of a non-rotating frame of reference for the earth. But still that is
good...

I don't clearly understand how the example you quoted for the big bang theory
(1,000,000 galaxies at 1Mpc apart). Perhaps someone will ask a question on the
news system... Otherwise I would be interested in a little more about what you
mean. [I'm sure it's simple.. but I don't understand it.]

Hope the book and your WWW site are coming along nicely.

Thanks. Hare Krishna!


Madhudvisa dasa




>Dear Madhudvisa dasa
>
>The Flat Earth thread has one or two interesting things in it.
>Jonathan Scott is very knowledgeable on relativity and he has
>agreed that the still earth is a valid reference frame for relativity.
>Most physicists don't understand this because they don't understand
>relativity.  I enclose a reply sent to usenet to someone who
>disagreed with Jonathan Scott.
>
>Have fun
>
>Ray
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Group Name: sci.astro
>
>Jonathan Scott <jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >It turns out that if you claim that you are standing still and it i
>> >the universe which is rotating, the gravitational rotational field
>> >of the universe causes things to move in strange ways which
>> >correspond exactly to the Newtonian centrifugal and coriolis forces
>> >experienced in a rotating frame of reference.
>
>Ken Arromdee (email: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>> I'm a little doubtful here.  If you were standing still and the
>> universe rotating, distant objects would be moving at faster than
>> the speed of light. --
>
>No, Jonathan is correct.
>
>Under relativity, if the universe was rotating around the earth
>it would have a radius of 27.6 a.u. so nothing would be going faster
>than light.
>

>If you think that this is really silly, then consider the presently
>largely accepted model of the universe, the Big Bang.  In this model
>if you have a row of 1,000,000 galaxies at 1Mpc distances apart (as
>seen by the locals) then it still fits in a sphere of radius 6,000Mpc
>(or less depending on Hubble's constant).
>
>There is no difference in the silliness, only in the radius.
>
>Ray Tomes     
>
>
>

• Prev: St Franciss of Assisi
• Next: Re: straight edge
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index