Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Venus Observations

This post was accidentally deleted, now re-instated, sorry for the confusion everyone...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012


Venus Observations

Re: the recent Venus Transit and the speculations in Seven Stars on the North and 6 Days

This letter was published in the [UK] Jewish Tribune.

Written by Amnon Goldberg

Your photo of the recent transit of Venus reminded one of the statement "Venus lies upon the Sun in summer to cool it off lest it scorch the Earth" (Sefer Gedulat Moshe). Venus (known as Nogah, Ayelet HaShachar, Kochav HaErev, Estahar, Cytherea, Aphrodite, Phosphorus, Hesperus etc), is the only celestial object apart from the Sun and Moon that can be seen by the unaided eye at daytime.

"He who is born under Venus will be wealthy and unchaste....because of its fire" (Talmud Shabbat 156). Indeed, with an atmospheric pressure one hundred times that of ours, and its 1000 degree waterless atmosphere of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphuric acid, the Venusian climate is a veritable hell.

"The beauty of Benayahu ben Yehoyada shone like Venus", "Esther was so named because she was as beautiful as Estahar" (Megillah 13). "There are nine spheres....the third contains the planet Venus" (Maimonides, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 3). "The seven branches of the Menorah correspond to the seven planets" (Bamidbar Rabbah 15). "Each planet has its own angel ....Venus has Aniel". In the Kabbalah, Venus is viewed as being a physical manifestation of the Supernal Sefirah of Netzach - Victory.

That Venus displays the same face to the Earth every time they are nearest to each other, which can be as close as 26 million miles (only 100 times the distance to the Moon), is known as 'orbital resonance', and is not explainable in terms of the billions of years that orbital evolutionists claim. Rabbi Avigdor Miller said that we need not be dismissive of Immanuel Velikovsky's theory about the roles Venus and Mars played in the worldwide upheavals that took place during the time of the Exodus c1300 BCE.

The claim that Galileo's telescope observation of the phases of Venus disproved the geocentric model has long ago been disproved. Measurements of radar returns from Venus and discrepancies in its predicted perihelia would seem to undermine Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If Relativity is ever shown to be wrong, then all the experimental results that continue to fail to detect the Earth's motion would mean that the Geocentric paradigm would not just remain a primus inter pares, but would actually become the favored model of the universe, in accordance with the Bible and Jewish Sages: "The Earth is suspended at the center of the universe" (Maimonides)!

36 COMMENTS:

  1. "Venus lies upon the Sun in summer to cool it off lest it scorch the Earth" (Sefer Gedulat Moshe).

    There is no "summer" or "winter" for the sun. The temperature of the sun does not change based on what the season on Earth is.

    Secondly, the transit of Venus across the sun occurred in spring, not summer. Summer starts on June 21.

    Thirdly, even if it were summer, it's not summer all over the Earth. When it's summer in the US and Israel, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere. If the issue at hand is a danger of the sun scorching the earth, it would be just as valid to say that Venus should transit the sun in winter, since we don't want the Southern Hemisphere to burn up either.

    Furthermore, looking at the last few transits of Venus, none of them have occurred at a time when it was summer *anywhere* on Earth.

    Nov 23 1396 (autumn in Northern Hemisphere/spring in Southern)
    May 25-26 1518 (spring/autumn)
    May 23 1526 (spring/autumn)
    Dec 7 1631 (autumn/spring)
    Dec 4 1639 (autumn/spring)
    Jun 6 1761 (spring/autumn)
    Jun 3-4 1769 (spring/autumn)
    Dec 9 1874 (autumn/spring)
    Dec 6 1882 (autumn/spring)
    Jun 8 2004 (spring/autumn)
    Jun 5-6 2012 (spring/autumn)

    Furthermore, the transits upcoming in 2117, 2125, 2247, 2255, 2360, 2368, 2490 and 2498 all occur in the spring and autumn. NONE of them will occur when it is summer anywhere on Earth.

    The claim that Galileo's telescope observation of the phases of Venus disproved the geocentric model has long ago been disproved.

    Cite, please? Please explain who disproved it and when (long ago) it was disproven and how.

    but would actually become the favored model of the universe

    I doubt that. Disproving a heliocentric model does not automatically make a geocentric model correct. But before we get to that, please provide some proof that the heliocentric model of the Solar System is wrong.

    The Wolf
    Reply
  2. The Wolf, Amnon Goldberg has a perverted view of the Universe. He listens to no arguments. The question is how he merited to appear here, on this blog.
    Reply
  3. I am just new at all this being person in Teshuvah, HaShem please help me, anyway I wonder if its okay to speak of the planets in such a way? Are they thinkers? do they have faces? Isnt this astrology and is this wrong? I am just not sure. I cant make heads or tails of the wolf comment. Okay any answers would be very much appreciated.
    Reply
  4. Let us get more accurate information about what Einstein said. Since the Earth and the sun are moving through the galaxy at a speed of about 18 miles a second, the relative positions of the two bodies are more of an interlocked sinusoidal pattern. Einstein stated that we have no way of really determining that the Earth is going around the sun and that it is possible that the sun could be in a pattern that is more congruent with it going around the Earth (just like the Torah intimates). Don't mess with my Jewish friend Einstein. His Law of Relativity (no longer called the Theory of Relativity due to extensive proof) had its origin from scriptures. Hashem gave us Einstein at the exact time He wanted this information to be known and it all is according to Torah.
    Reply
  5. One can do no better than quote the Great Albert himself:

    “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate system” .

    "It is my firm belief that it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science" (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
    Reply
  6. B'H
    THE FIRST OR LAST BLOG DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU LOOK AT THE LIST IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
    THE SAME IS TRUE FOR A GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL
    REMEMBER ALEPH TO TAV CODE SWITCHING?

    THUS IT ALL DEPENDS UPON ONES PERSPECTIVE

    LE CHAIM
    Reply
  7. In Talmud it is written, that Orion causes heat: Were it not for the heat of Orion the world could not endure the cold of Pleiades; and were it not for the cold of Pleiades the world could not endure the heat of Orion. Berakoth 58b
    Velikovsky in some book describes, that Venus several times collided with Mars & Earth in Exodus times. It appeared from Jupiter or was comet, origin of Venus is quite mysterious.
    I agree with geocentric system, it's understandable-visible with clear eye.
    Reply
  8. Venus exhibits phases similar to the Moon. Galileo maintained that the Ptolemaic Geocentric model could not account for these phases. His argument would be correct if one insists on circular orbits; but if one allows for elliptical orbits in the Ptolemaic model, then the argument falls flat. Galileo's 3 proofs for Heliocentrism could just as well prove the Geocentric Tychonic universe.
    Reply
  9. To the Wolf:
    The following words are from a letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt'l, to the Organization of Orthodox Scientists (1971):

    "...It was conceivable, in those days, that if one approached a student who dabbled in science and told him that according to the Torah-hashkofo [Torah outlook], the sun revolves around the earth, he might well repudiate Torah altogether. So, in an effort to encourage the student to put on Teffilin [ritual prayer boxes], the well-meaning Rabbi did not mind conceding that the earth revolved around the sun. But surely there is no longer any justification whatever to perpetuate this ‘inferiority complex!’ Certainly there is no basis for holding on to views which have come down in outdated elementary and high school textbooks on science.

    This matter of the sun and the earth is a further case in point. To declare categorically in the name of science, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vise versa, is, as noted above, turning the scientific clock back to the 19th century and Medieval science. It is also at variance with the theory of relativity, which has likewise been universally accepted. Science now declares—as categorically as it is permissible for contemporary science—that where two bodies in space are in relative motion, it is scientifically impossible to determine which is at rest and which in motion."

    http://www.torahscience.org/torahsci/rebbeletter.html
    Reply
  10. Internet Doomsday probably by July 9

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/technology/136748/how_to_avoid_internet_doomsday
    Reply
  11. The majority of the readers of this blog share the perverted views of Amnon Goldberg, it appears. The owner of this blog also, it seems. Fortunately, the Truth is not democratic.
    Reply
  12. We live in interesting times - ''Novelty'' - as Terence McKenna wrote:

    The Final Slope
    Reply
  13. Yes, interesting times. It is said that Moshiach will not be so acceptable to the regilious Jew. Again, the Truth is not at all democratic. Kudos to The Wolf.
    Reply
  14. "The majority of the readers of this blog share the ... views of Amnon Goldberg, it appears."

    Indeed, we live in an Olam shel Sheker, to borrow a phrase.

    Explaining relative motion in either model is of course possible. But still, the earth revolves around the sun. To cite myself from an earlier comment on my own blog:

    there are significant objections to this assertion, imho. i am no expert in the Rebbe's thought or in astronomy, and others can correct me, but perhaps i will present it in a later post. in shorthand: stellar parallax, the coriolus effect, the motion of pendulums, the fact that all *other* planets still would be rotating on their axis, so why not earth, and the need to resort to epicycles in the ptolmaic model to account for the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. of course you can describe motions from any vantage point using any coordinate system, but the heliocentric model explains it much more simply and accounts for all these phenomena.
    Reply

    Replies

    1. Then isn't it interesting that Joshua stopped the sun on 3 Tamuz? That would imply that the sun is moving? It doesn't say he stopped the earth.


      ''And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed...''[Yehoshua 10:1]


      http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0610.htm
    2. Lyubavitcher Rebbe Menahem Mendel Yortzait is 3 Tammuz.
    3. Indeed, how to interpret pesukim like this is a good question. But a good question, rather than a definitive proof. Indeed, heliocentrist rabbis have already addressed this question.

      (For instance, "The Malmad Hatalmidim understands that the pursuit was so hot and successful that they were able to accomplish as if the day was longer.")

      The Torah also says that Hashem has an outstretched arm, even though we know Hashem does not have a body. Not everything is intended to be taken literally. Some things might be written idiomatically -- that is, we say that the Sun rose this morning, even though we know the earth is rotating. Or, it could be written from the typical observer's perspective. Or, some things might be written according to the limited understanding of the people of the time, because the Torah is not a science book. To cite Isadore Twersky, summarizing the views of Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, a Rishon: ""A statement may be purposely erroneous, reflecting an erroneous view of the masses. We are not dealing merely with an unsophisticated or unrationalized view, but an intentionally, patently false view espoused by the masses and enshrined in Scripture. The view or statement need not be allegorized, merely recognized for what it is."

      Or, in the language of Chazal, dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam.

      kol tuv,
      josh
  15. ariela:
    anyway I wonder if its okay to speak of the planets in such a way? Are they thinkers? do they have faces?

    You are correct; these are meant to be taken metaphorically, or to express deep concepts in cryptic fashion.

    Isnt this astrology and is this wrong?
    It might be astrology. Whether it is forbidden, or incorrect, might be a dispute among Rishonim. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

    All the best,
    Josh
    Reply
  16. Those that take the trouble to study the scientific case for geocentricity will find that a literal interpretation of Tenach and Chazal is fully scientifically supported in such works as:

    "Geocentrism", Avi Rabinowitz, B'Or HaTorah 1986
    "De Labore Solis - Airy's Failure reconsidered", Walter van der Kamp 1988
    "Geocentricity”, Gerardus Bouw 1993
    "True Science supports the Bible", Malcolm Bowden 1998
    "Torah Metaphysics versus Newtonian Empiricism", Shimon Cowen, B'Or HaTorah 1999
    "Galileo was wrong", Robert Sungenis 2008
    "Hashemesh b'gvuraso" Yosef Zalman Bloch 5769
    Reply
  17. Thanks. I'm aware of attempts to support geocentricity, for religious reasons. (Just as I'm aware of attempts to support the idea that Jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth, for religious reasons.) I'm also aware that at a certain level of scientific / mathematical complexity, most readers are unable to really follow the line of argument or realize its deficiencies, and simply walk away with the impression that an impressive scientific case has been made.

    By the way, don't google and visit B'Or HaTorah's website. Google Chrome warns of malware...

    kt,
    josh
    Reply
  18. Agree with Klishlishi. Josh is a religious rationalist. The Jewish people do not fall in the realm of rationalism but are a miracle itself. That is why the teachings of the Zohar, chassidus bring out the inner meanings of Torah. There is Torah Nistar. The Torah Niglah is a guide for the Jewish people to live a life that G-D commands and is holy. But for the mysteries, you need to go to Torah Nistar. When science concurs with Torah, you know they've gotten it right; otherwise, forget it.
    Reply
  19. Just learned a lot things happened under Venus. I am quite new in Jewish and the topic you mentioned here is really important for me. That's why thanks goes to you for it. You can check out the interesting video goo.gl/TJfDb. Didn't realize the major effect forgiving has on our health.
    Reply
  20. "Josh is a religious rationalist."
    Disbelief in geocentrism is not a mark of religious rationalism! There are plenty of modern rabbis who are not "rationalists" who know that geocentrism is not true.

    Was Ramban (Nachmanides) a 'religious rationalist'? No, but he reinterpreted a pasuk about the genesis of the rainbow on the basis of what he knew from Greek science, such that it could not have been a new creation. He did NOT say that we must disregard science. Go ahead and dismiss the Ramban, a kabbalist.

    And anon, *do* you believe that Jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth?

    kol tuv,
    josh
    Reply
  21. If Relativity is true, then geocentrism is a full primus inter pares (a first among equals) and can in no way be said to be "not true". It is a perfectly acceptable way of viewing universe, not just as a mind game, nor as a philosophy, nor just religiously, nor as a mathematical construct, but in terms of hard Einsteinian physics.

    And should Relativity ever be shown to be disproven (not a few modern scientists are Anti-Relativists; others believe in "Absolute Space"; others in the existence of the Ether) - "it takes only one experimental result to disprove an entire theory" (Stephen Hawking) - then the zero velocity results of all the scores of Michelson-Moreley-type experiments that have consistently failed to detect the Earth's purported 67,000 mph velocity round the Sun - are real, not apparent, and we go back to a Geostatic Earth.

    Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. Only its fixity and staticity is referred to - "Hashem writes what He means and means what He writes": "We cannot feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that we are actually in motion!" (Professor Lincoln Barnett)
    Reply
  22. I am not going to prove in a blog comment section that geocentrism is false. Certainly you can cite statements out of context, that most people here have the scientific background to evaluate, but will convince them that there is substance to the argument.

    However, might I ask you the following question, assuming that the Earth does not rotate.

    Does Venus rotate? Could an observer on Venus, who was born on Venus, make exactly the same "venocentric" assertions, that Venus is fixed in place and the rest of the universe rotates around it?

    Same question for Mars. And Jupiter. And Neptune. We can only assert that one of them it stationary at a time, at MOST.

    At any rate, here are two interesting links. here and here.
    Reply
  23. "Could an observer on Venus, who was born on Venus,"
    Build a proof on an impossible assumption?
    Oh, sorry, of course it's possible - if they sent a pregnant astronaut to Venus!
    And that would assert that Venus is fixed!
    Looks like you can interest NASA in a new project.

    "We can only assert that one of them it stationary at a time"
    You're in perfect agreement with the geocentrists there.
    Reply
  24. Even the English Arch-Atheist Bertrand Russell was forced to admit that "Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be EXACTLY the same: a METAPHYSICAL assumption has to be made".

    Current Relativistic scientific thinking is that heliocentrism, plutocentrism, alpha centauricentrism....AND geocentrism are by definition all EQUALLY valid and in NO WAY can be said to be wrong.

    Relativity does not say that the universe has no center: it says that we cannot DETERMINE where that center is.

    To do so, one would have to go outside of the universe, observe it from the outside, something that we cannot do even theoretically (except from Olam Haba!), and then report back in what is the true state of cosmic affairs. Torah Jews believe that they already have had that report!

    "We know that the difference between the heliocentric theory and geocentric theory is one of relative motion ONLY, and that difference has NO physical significance. If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an EVEN DRAW draw out of physical and mathematical necessity” (Sir Fred Hoyle).

    The Jewish scientist Michelson of Michelson-Morley zero-velocity experiment fame stated on his death bed that one thing he wanted to do was to have his experiment performed on the Moon, away from the Earth, to see if the interference fringes on his interferometer showed up there, unlike on Earth. NASA refuses to have his experiment performed on the Moon or on a Shuttle because if Special Relativity is shown to be wrong and the intereference fringes appeared from orbit, whilst not on Earth, then it would mean that the Earth was stationary in am ABSOLUTE, non-Relativistic sense, the entire card castle of modern cosmology would collapse, and Geocentrism & the Tenach would be re-enthroned. Something which NASA, the Scientific Establishment and TPTB cannot allow to happen!
    Reply
  25. "Build a proof on an impossible assumption?"

    No, a thought experiment. If any frame of reference is equally valid, then a frame of reference with Venus at the center is also equally valid. And that Venutian would still see all the other planets rotating. I think you simply did not understand what I was saying.

    "Something which NASA, the Scientific Establishment and TPTB cannot allow to happen!"
    Really?! A conspiracy theory, that NASA is NOT interested in advancing scientific knowledge and so are deliberately suppressing experiments? I thought it could not get any sillier.

    By the way, the best illustrative example of this approach of "Torah Jews believe that they already have had that report" is at this Imamother forum. Read the very first post there. Do you agree, for example, with the statement that: ""Science" tells us that the Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water on the planet. The Torah tells us that the Mediterranean is the largest (hence it's name "yam hagadol"). We know the Torah is right because it comes from the One who created the Oceans. "

    Also, see this post on Avakesh.

    Have a great Shabbos,
    Josh
    Reply

    Replies

    1. A hypothetical situation that's completely out of touch with reality isn't a strong enough argument to force the Torah out of its simple meaning.
      Isn't that one of the wonders of Hashem's creation? He created a universe with intelligent beings at its center that have the ability to imagine alternate realities!
      And by the way (and I'm saying this not as a logical argument but as a gut feeling, so you may disagree with me) the fact that anti-geocentrism vastly diminishes the importance of Man in the universe and therefore his obligation to moral behavior (whereas the Torah holds that every action of every human being has a critical effect on the entire universe), seems to throw some doubt on the sincerity of its proponents.
    2. No, not "a hypothetical situation that's completely out of touch with reality". A thought experiment. View the universe from position A. Now view the universe as if you were standing in position B. Now view the universe as if you were standing in position C. Could you describe the universe identically? If so, what makes the geocentrist perspective so compelling, over a venocentric perspective, for example? And isn't it interesting that the Coriolis effect is observable on every planet, and will be explained as rotation on every other planet, but by other means for planet earth? (Saying this targeting a specific subset of geocentrist here.)

      The "observer, born on Venus" was a way of making the thought experiment more concrete, and to aid in visualization. But instead, you entirely missed the point and carried on as if I were putting forth an argument entirely out of touch with reality.

      You wouldn't be a geocentrist if you didn't (incorrectly) believe that the Torah promotes geocentrism. The science and pseudoscience follows.
  26. While we are at it, another source, where these issues get fleshed out in a way I don't want to bother with. Link causes a download of a word document from Reply
  27. Klishlishi: You write "Current Relativistic scientific thinking is that heliocentrism, plutocentrism, alpha centauricentrism....AND geocentrism are by definition all EQUALLY valid and in NO WAY can be said to be wrong."

    Actually, they are all wrong. The right way to say it is that for every free falling object(such as the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Venus, Mars, etc) a local Lorentz reference frame can be constructed, such the physics will be the same as for all other local Lorenz reference frames. The Earth, in its local Lorentz frame, is rotating around its axis in 24 hours. That is all: the Earth is not moving, that is the big Chiddush. The physics is the same here as in a local Lorentz frame, constructed in the same way, of Venus, of of Mars, or of the Sun. Each not moving, but rotating, in its local Lorentz reference frame.
    Reply
  28. There exists an academic and media mafiosi which attempts to discourage, suppress, ostracize, threaten, and demote individuals who even start to show an interest in "heterodox ideas".

    It still exists, but in the Internet Era its power has been weakened.

    Organised pressure groups, chicanery, sharp practice, and jealous histrionics abound in the "altruistic" Scientific Establishment, all geared to prevent and discredit any research and experimentation that threatens the establishment "status quo" or is against "informed opinion", especially in the area of today's three "sacred
    cows" of Evolution, Relativity and Heliocentricity.

    Any doubters or nay-sayers are lambasted with epithets like "dupe", "heresy", "shameful", "disgraceful", "pseudo-scientific fanaticism", "fog of nonsense", "red herrings", "shallow", "starry-eyed fundamentalism", "extreme", "lack of balance, "dogmatic","bigoted", "hysterical", "far fetched", "ignorant", "of no help to anyone",
    "height of presumption" etc.

    Even on this forum, the term "perverted" has been used!
    500 years ago heliocentrism was viewed as the heresy. Now its the geocentrists who are the 'heretics'!

    When even President Reagan in 1984 dared to express his doubts in the theory of evolution, public questions were raised as to his sanity!

    Researchers like Immanuel Velikovsky (catastrophist), Halton Arp (anti-Big Bang), Stefan Marinov (anti-Relativist), Pons and Fleischmann (cold fusion), Robert Gentry (pleochroic haloes), Richard Milton (anti-evolution), Barry Setterfield (decrease in
    speed of light), Eric Braithwate (free energy), Walter van der Kamp (geocentrist) etc., were shown to have reasonable cases, or even to be substantially correct, yet they were all greeted with epithets like "stupid", "drivel", "loony", "harmless fruitcake",
    "in need of psychiatric help" etc., and conspiratorial attempts at the highest levels were made to silence them, ban their publications, restrict their access to laboratories, deny them telescope time
    etc. in blatant disrespect of the pursuit of novel human knowledge.
    Reply
  29. General Relativity stipulates that any observer can consider himself to be at rest ­ and that solving Einstein's field equations for his position will properly and satisfactorily describe all phenomena observed from that vantage point.

    Einstein taught that there is a force inside a sphere of matter that is in motion. He wrote plainly to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913, "If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."

    i.e.
    Mach's Principle states that an Earth rotating on its axis every 24 hours produces EXACTLY the same weather patterns, Coriolis Forces, Foucault Pendulum, equatorial bulge etc, as a universe rotating round a stationary Earth every 24 hours.
    Reply
  30. Dunash wrote: General Relativity stipulates that any observer can consider himself to be at rest ­ and that solving Einstein's field equations for his position will properly and satisfactorily describe all phenomena observed from that vantage point."

    This is not true. See my previous comment. Mach's Principle is not physics. That is, it is "philosophy" that played a role in the long construction of General Relativity, but it is not true.
    Reply
  31. The ways of the Soton & Yetzer Hara has it that the biggest opposition to geocentricity comes not from gentiles, not from Reform Jews, but from.....Orthodox Tenach-believing Jews! Those Orthodox Jews who oppose geocentricity so glibly should beware "lest they be found fighting against G-d"!

    Ernst Mach (he of the speed of sound "Mach Number" fame)
    proposed an important principle which is that the mass of the universe is a major controlling factor in all relative movements of the various bodies, particularly the planetary system relative to the rest of the universe.

    Whether the universe rotates around the Earth or the Earth spins on its axis is indeterminable. It is a matter of the geometry of moving bodies and whatever reference grid we choose will give EXACTLY the same results.

    The subject of geocentricity is held in such HORROR by orthodox scientists, that rather than use such an emotive word, they use "Mach's Principle" as a code word for the same subject.

    Mach took Newtonian relativity to its logical conclusion, stating quite plainly:

    "Obviously it matters little if we think of
    the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if
    we view it at rest while the fixed stars
    revolve around it. Geometrically these are
    exactly the same case of a relative rotation
    of the Earth and the fixed stars with
    respect to one another.All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to
    decide between relative and absolute
    motion. If there are still modern authors
    who, through the Newtonian water bucket
    arguments, allow themselves to be misled
    into differentiating between relative and
    absolute motion, they fail to take into
    account that the world system has been
    given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic
    and Copernican views are only our
    interpretations, but both EQUALLY TRUE".

    Einstein held likewise.

    If Mach is wrong, then so is Relativity.

    If however Moshe Rafal is one of the growing number of ANTI-Relativists, then what is his explanation for the zero-velocty result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and positive result of the Michelson-Gale experiment?!
    Reply

1 comment:

  1. As I am quiet new in Jewish, looking around for some Jewish information> Got something important here. Nice to get it.
    Have you seen this video http://goo.gl/Fvyjz ? It helped me get over my internal anger.

    ReplyDelete

Please be respectful, otherwise your comment will not be published.