Our Place in the Universe

First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving. That we are in the exact center of our universe.
However this common sense axiom is bad science. Not one word of this
common sense is reality. What I am trying to bring out is even in our
Macro realm common sense needs lots of thought We must realize our
Earth is just a speck of dust. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving. That we are in the exact center of our universe.
However this common sense axiom is bad science. Not one word of this
common sense is reality. What I am trying to bring out is even in our
Macro realm common sense needs lots of thought We must realize our
Earth is just a speck of dust. Bert


But just because we were so astounded when we found out that the
Earth's surface was curved, doesn't mean we should now be totally
obsessed with the idea that space is.

Double-A

Double-a Gravity makes things round,and a curve is a part of
round.Gravity is created by curve space,so again its going round and
round ( like a dog catching its own tail.) This is reality. This means
no straight rulers to be found. Spin is curved motion. Curved motion has
a constant gravity force(inertia) and inertia and gravity are the same
thing. It all fits with curve It all fits with spin. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.

Earth is a stable platform which is unmoving, if you want to look at it that
way.
Don't put down our ancestors: they were intelligent.


That we are in the exact center of our universe.
However this common sense axiom is bad science. Not one word of this
common sense is reality. What I am trying to bring out is even in our
Macro realm common sense needs lots of thought We must realize our
Earth is just a speck of dust. Bert

Earth is more than that. The human race gives it value.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.


Then how do you explain rotational motion? Even if you are not
relating or comparing it to something else, if it turns too fast, you
fly off? Is this still relative motion?

Double-A


Earth is a stable platform which is unmoving, if you want to look at it that
way.
Don't put down our ancestors: they were intelligent.


That we are in the exact center of our universe.
However this common sense axiom is bad science. Not one word of this
common sense is reality. What I am trying to bring out is even in our
Macro realm common sense needs lots of thought We must realize our
Earth is just a speck of dust. Bert

Earth is more than that. The human race gives it value.

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.


Then how do you explain rotational motion? Even if you are not
relating or comparing it to something else, if it turns too fast, you
fly off? Is this still relative motion?

Yes, it is still relative motion.

Rotational motion could just as easily be the entire universe rotating
around a stable object, as the object rotating.

If the universe is rotating around the object, it is the force of the
rotating universe that pulls the person away from the stationary object.

If you wish to look at it that way.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.


Then how do you explain rotational motion? Even if you are not
relating or comparing it to something else, if it turns too fast, you
fly off? Is this still relative motion?

Yes, it is still relative motion.

Rotational motion could just as easily be the entire universe rotating
around a stable object, as the object rotating.

If the universe is rotating around the object, it is the force of the
rotating universe that pulls the person away from the stationary object.

If you wish to look at it that way.


If I chose to look at it that the universe is rotating around the Earth
every 24 hours, then how do I explain how all those distant stars and
galaxies are able to travel at many times the speed of light in order
to make it around every day? And if the Earth's gravity were strong
enough to hold all those distant objects in orbit, then why wouldn't
everything on the Earth be crushed into a black hole?

Double-A

Mach gave reality to rotation. He showed that centrifugal force is not a
force,and is very bad thinking. You rotate a bucket full of water and
when it is upside down no water pours out,and Mach has for the reason
"All the stars in the universe" He is so very right Bert

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a
stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.


Then how do you explain rotational motion? Even if you are not
relating or comparing it to something else, if it turns too fast, you
fly off? Is this still relative motion?

Yes, it is still relative motion.

Rotational motion could just as easily be the entire universe rotating
around a stable object, as the object rotating.

If the universe is rotating around the object, it is the force of the
rotating universe that pulls the person away from the stationary object.

If you wish to look at it that way.


If I chose to look at it that the universe is rotating around the Earth
every 24 hours, then how do I explain how all those distant stars and
galaxies are able to travel at many times the speed of light in order
to make it around every day?

"Speed of light" only has meaning in relativeness to the "stationary" space
fabric. Since the distant stars are still embedded in the space fabric, or
are not too far from it, they and the space fabric revolve around the
rotating Earth no matter how far away they are.


And if the Earth's gravity were strong
enough to hold all those distant objects in orbit, then why wouldn't
everything on the Earth be crushed into a black hole?

Nothing is being crushed because everything continues to be held to the
space fabric, and therefore, to the observer, seem stationary.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark Earnest wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
First we will go with common sense.that the Earth's surface is a
stable
platform.and unmoving.

All motion is relative. There is no motion unless you compare it to
something else.


Then how do you explain rotational motion? Even if you are not
relating or comparing it to something else, if it turns too fast, you
fly off? Is this still relative motion?

Yes, it is still relative motion.

Rotational motion could just as easily be the entire universe rotating
around a stable object, as the object rotating.

If the universe is rotating around the object, it is the force of the
rotating universe that pulls the person away from the stationary object.

If you wish to look at it that way.


If I chose to look at it that the universe is rotating around the Earth
every 24 hours, then how do I explain how all those distant stars and
galaxies are able to travel at many times the speed of light in order
to make it around every day?

"Speed of light" only has meaning in relativeness to the "stationary" space
fabric. Since the distant stars are still embedded in the space fabric, or
are not too far from it, they and the space fabric revolve around the
rotating Earth no matter how far away they are.


And if the Earth's gravity were strong
enough to hold all those distant objects in orbit, then why wouldn't
everything on the Earth be crushed into a black hole?

Nothing is being crushed because everything continues to be held to the
space fabric, and therefore, to the observer, seem stationary.


OK, if space were rotating with them, I agree. That's the key!

Double-A