William of Ockham appears to have got it right back in the twelve to thirteen hundreds (c.1287-1347) --cf. above.
The proof is the "null" result of the 1887 Michelson Morley experiment, as interpreted through "the relativity of motion".
The result can be summarised as follows : "All trains everywhere on Earth have the light rays reaching the middle of the carriage (having been emitted simultaneously from each end) at the same time."
This can only happen, if all the trains are "stationary".
The same is true of the Michelson Morley experiment. In this case the light rays arrive back, after reflections, traversing different orthogonal "equal length" paths, ----simultaneously, notwithstanding the supposed motion of the apparatus.
Again-- if we put the Michelson Morley apparatus on a train, once more we would see a "null result".
This is because, paradoxically, there is no absolute motion. The speed of the trains on the Earth, and the speed of the Earth itself, is "indeterminate".
Said differently, by the relativity of motion, and as demonstrated by the Michelson Morley experiment, and by the Einstein train-embankment experiment, it is impossible for the Earth to be "in motion". Its absolute motion is nil. It is fixed.
To say that the Earth is in motion, does not comport with the (true) findings of the Einstein train-embankment experiment, nor with the (true) findings the Michelson Morley experiment.
If you deny it, you will have to explain why the Michelson-Morley apparatus, traveling (supposedly) at 30,000 meters per second around the Sun, not to mention its (supposed) motion of 465 meters per second upon the surface, as the Earth rotates, gave a "null" result.
And this strange property-- "the relativity of motion"-- its origin, is, I believe, with the observers. In the final analysis, it is the existence of mankind, (the observers,) which mean the Earth is absolutely still, and ironically, the "fixed Earthers" were right, all along.
cf also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book
and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_length_of_a_light-ray_indeterminate_Is_it_possible_that_the_same_ray_can_have_different_lengths_in_a_stationary_and_a_moving_frame
You have it wrong; the Earth is surrounded by a media which is following it through space, i.e. all motions on Earth should be referenced to the center of the Earth.
JES
cf. Relativity for the Layman, by James A Coleman (1954,) above. (Later editions with a preface by Einstein.)
Ironically, this is, pretty much, the correct explanation. The Earth is fixed, and it does occupy an omnipotent position in the Universe. The only real blunder in the above passage, is that the author has failed to recognise the importance of mankind.
It is through mankind that the "relativity of motion" receives its exegesis.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Thesis Research