holographic wrote:ClaudiaRothenbach wrote:holographic wrote:How about an image of Galileo, Luther, Jefferson, and Zundel.
'Does the sun actually revolve around the earth'
-Galileo
Einstein proved that the sun really revolves around the earth.
for all its "relativism", Einstein's theory was quite ABSOLUTE.Its greatest contribution was the invariance of the speed of light. Yet, Einstein failed to include rotation in his theory.
Rotation, is also known as "the neglected invariant". Please stand up and make a 360 degree turn....thank you, you may sit down now.
Could we say that the universe has spun around you? NO, because of the invariance of the speed of light, distant and NOT SO distant stars would have to exceed the speed of light to accomplish that. ROTATION is absolute, NOT relative)
The absolute equivalence of any two frames of reference only makes sense in the context of Special Relativity, when you are able to deal exclusively with
inertial frames of reference. However, as soon as it becomes necessary to consider non-inertial frames of reference -- such as rotating ones -- things become more complicated, gravity and the geometry of spacetime must be considered in the General Relativity context etc. That's why, in the Twins so-called paradox, the twin that enters the rocket, travels away, achieves near-light speeds, and then decelerates, inverts the direction of his motion, re-acelerates, and returns to Earth is the one that ages the least. Otherwise, if the motions of the two twins were considered to be absolutely equivalent, an asymmetrical time dilation wouldn't make any sense.
So, it's clear that it makes much more sense to say that the Earth and the planets revolve around the Sun, than to say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth, if for no other reason because you need a much more elaborate description (with complicated epicycles etc.) for the second conventional viewpoint.
And this brings me to the point I wished to make: it's correct to say that both the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system are describable in rigorous terms, even though with unequal degrees of simplicity and an unequal power of explanation for such matters as the history of the solar system.
What it is
not correct to say is that the universe has the planet Earth for a privileged fixed center around which the whole cosmos revolves, for the very simple reason that such a point does not exist. It is this understanding of the philosophical position to be extrapolated from the scientific observations that the superstitious Church utterly lacked, while the Galilean view clearly implies it as a rich and deep consequence.
That said, I maintain that it is arrogant and dangerous to adopt Galileo -- a scientific genius, not an hands-on fighter against empowered religion -- as emblematic of revisionism. If any historical characters are required I would think such models as Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, or Voltaire would be much more appropriate.
Halo wrote:I really need an answer to my technical problem lol. Would transparency work the way I displayed a page ago, or not?:D
Halo, I dare say no one seems so far very keen on complications like the transparency thing. Personally I confess I would prefer your Justice scales on the top, plus the 1984 Zündel & Rudolf on both sides of a central composition to be discussed.
Direct relevance to revisionism is one thing; historical, political and intellectual importance is another. I'm afraid your opinion of Europeans is way too low.
