Second Galilei Event

[xersan]

II.  Galilei Event

 

In science and life the perceiving the entire of picture is important. But the organism that is called “Human” is at a position of local place or he usually considers himself as a reference frame. For example they had kept a stationary postulate as “the Sun turns around the Earth” up to 16 th Century.

 

As known this dogmatic postulate was broken by Galilei (Copernic’s detection was upon orbital motion; Galilei’s detection is belonging with axial turning of the Earth). If we discuss this event we will see that “to see from relative position causes wrong perception; correct results are procured due to a reference frame which has high capacity. For example in relation of the Earth and Moon the roles are well-directed:  the phrase of “The moon turns around the earth.” is consistent.

In big picture the Sun has higher capacity than the Earth and the sun is reference frame for a relation.

Edited April 9, 2015 by xersan

[Turtle]

...If we discuss this event we will see that “to see from relative position causes wrong perception; ...

First, this does not belong in Physics & Mathematics.

Second, everything is relative.

Third, is there something you want to discuss here, or are you just soapboxing?

[xersan]

First, this does not belong in Physics & Mathematics.

Second, everything is relative.

Third, is there something you want to discuss here, or are you just soapboxing?

 

 

1. Yes, it is asubject of the section of alternative theory.
2. Yes, everything is relative and the co-reference frame of everything is LCS (Light coordinate system) or outer space or entire of universe (*).
3. You are my hero.
4. If everything would be simple as shown, the science should be unneeded.

 

(*)  Everything has motion in universe and there is not any inert frame.  

Edited April 14, 2015 by xersan

[Eclogite]

Moderation Comment: I have moved this to Alternative Theories. Xersan, since English is not your native language it is difficult to follow what your argument is. However, I see very little science in what you have presented and believe I am being generous in moving this only as far as Alternative Theories.

 

If you are unable to make your argument clearer and more convincing I shall likely move it further down the heirarchy.

[xersan]

...you are unable to make your argument clearer and more convincing...

 

 

 

I hope that I could tell the nuance clearly and simply.

Edited May 7, 2015 by xersan

[xersan]

 

 

STR (Special Theory of Relativity) says that cosmological analyses are impossible because of the problem of simultaneity.

Edited April 14, 2015 by xersan

[xersan]

The report of the objections about STR

 

 

I want to share my final comment for my mental adventure about STR. Because, according to some books, to interest and understand the STR is an essential point for mental enlightens and high level pleasure of personal life events.

 

 

STR has a powerful effect to provoke the interest of science and to advance our intellectual performance. Karl Popper had mentioned this theory as a good example in his book (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). STR has supported our humanity pride by discovering a nature secret and deserved high admiration. So it has become an idol. Time travel opens the new and marvelous mental potentials/large frontiers. The concepts of "relativity of everything" and “the collapse of paradigm of absoluteness" have become a guide for philosophy and science (The concept of E = m.c^2 is  the theory of everything).

 

Yes, there are also few dissident persons about STR; but, they could not realize an effect. Objections did not lumped enough to be significant; so current/common opinion keeps calmly. Also, I could not convince anyone; and I am feeling mental tiredness. 

 

 

 

This theory has its self high immunity or protection. It has not a serious function for our daily life; but of course it is very very interesting for our curiosities; especially, the time travel is a great concept for our minds; it helps for our philosophic questions and interpretations upon universe and life.  Therefore, ability and possibility of considering the objections are very very low.  

 

 

 

As a result, the objections may only hope to be a recording for the future.  Perhaps, after 500-1000 years, someone will reconsider some clues and reconfigure the subject.

 

 

I had wanted and worked to understand the STR; I shared some of my objections here.  But my interest finished. I’ll study for the philosophy of science any more.

Edited May 7, 2015 by xersan