"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:466EB034.5E8D18FB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Neil Bates wrote:
>>
>> Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
>> accelerated motion.
>
> Acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic isolation.
> Acceleration is a local property. Three orthogonal laser ring gyros
> and Bob is your Uncle. Or do it mechanically with three orthogonal
> microfabricated cantilever mechanical accelerometers.
>
>> Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
>> with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
>> beyond it.
> [snip crap]
>
> Poison the well and every sip is tainted. Hey stooopid - it cannot be
> gravitation because time passage would be altered. It cannot be
> inertia because acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic
> isolation. Acceleration is a local property. It cannot be anything
> else because we've come to the end of the list.
>
Uh, Al, I thought you were supposed to be smart, especially considering
your
provenence (Group 233 for me, whatever for you.) I can't imagine how you
could miss, that I didn't say I agreed with the GR concept that I was
merely
describing - I was presenting what the pop relativity writers usually say,
and indeed was giving one form of refutation myself. I have noticed this
odd
failure to note presence of the reductio in other commentary lately, and I
don't know why so many have become sloppy about it.
>>A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
>
> How will you spin the universe to have consistency among three
> orthogonal spinning wheels?
>
> Idiot.
It's not my problem anyway, silly. If you think you really have a good
point
yourself, then take it out there.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
|
