Originally Posted By: finiter

One thing that I don't agree with you is the argument that 'the concept of absolute space and time has been falsified'. It has 'never' been falsified.


I will deal with the rest later lets just deal with this one point because it is the most important.

What you have written in that statement is implicitly WRONG it has been falsified over and over again.

Mach realized it with the historic bucket argument in 1687 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument)

You take a bucket of water hung by a rope twist the rope and realease it the bucket spins. Look at the meniscus of the water

Quote:

All observers agree that the surface of rotating water is curved. However, the explanation of this curvature involves centrifugal force for all observers with the exception of a truly stationary observer, who finds the curvature is consistent with the rate of rotation of the water as they observe it, with no need for an additional centrifugal force. Thus, a stationary frame can be identified, and it is not necessary to ask "Stationary with respect to what?":


The original question, "relative to what frame of reference do the laws of motion hold?" is revealed to be wrongly posed. For the laws of motion essentially determine a class of reference frames, and (in principle) a procedure for constructing them.


It will explain the same problem comes up with rotating spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres).

So even back in Newton's day absolute space was completely debunked you have to add in non-sensical fiction force to hold everything together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force).

So absolute space was dead and buried in the 17th century unless your happy to randomly add in fictional forces just to make the maths work which was the status until Einstein and probably what you were taught at school by sounds.

When they taught you the fictional forces at school did they explain to you they aren't real they are mathematical fudges?

They quote it over and over again through out history read the role call through the ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force).

Do you understand why I have trouble with your statement now?

The question moreover was there ever a time absolute space was ever believed by anyone other than a layman and Newton.

So in your theory how do the random fictional forces come about ... remember they definitely are not real because you can always find a reference frame where the forces are not necessary to explain the physics.

In circular movement it comes down to the basic question is there such thing as absolute rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation)
.

Last edited by Orac; 10/11/11 04:05 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.