Difference between revisions of "Mach's Principle vs. Einstein's Relativity"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
− | At the present time the accepted cosmological picture is that of an infinite and expanding Universe based on Einstein's relativity. Cosmic redshifts are interpreted as galaxies receding from us with speeds that increase with distance, reaching velocities approaching <em>c</em>, the speed of light, and it is believed that we occupy the center of the expansion. Placing outselves at the center, and at relative rest, creates mathematical equations that are conceptually impossible. One can compare it to the difficulties our ancestors faced before Copernicus' time, trying to describe planetary orbits mathematically, with Earth at the center and at rest. The problem is solved by adopting Mach's Principle, which turns the picture around so that our frame of reference is moving with <em>c</em> relative to the rest of the Universe and the proof if found in the physics of atomic orbits, a domain where Einstein's relativistic mechanics fail. | + | At the present time the accepted cosmological picture is that of an infinite and expanding Universe based on Einstein's relativity. Cosmic redshifts are interpreted as galaxies receding from us with speeds that increase with distance, reaching velocities approaching <em>c</em>, the speed of light, and it is believed that we occupy the center of the expansion. Placing outselves at the center, and at relative rest, creates mathematical equations that are conceptually impossible. One can compare it to the difficulties our ancestors faced before Copernicus' time, trying to describe planetary orbits mathematically, with Earth at the center and at rest. The problem is solved by adopting Mach's Principle, which turns the picture around so that our frame of reference is moving with <em>c</em> relative to the rest of the Universe and the proof if found in the physics of atomic orbits, a domain where Einstein's relativistic mechanics fail. |
− | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]] |
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:Relativity|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]] |
Latest revision as of 19:41, 1 January 2017
Scientific Paper | |
---|---|
Title | Mach\'s Principle vs. Einstein\'s Relativity |
Author(s) | Lars W?hlin |
Keywords | Einstein's relativity, Mach's Principle, cosmic redshifts |
Published | 1993 |
Journal | Galilean Electrodynamics |
Volume | 4 |
Number | 3 |
Pages | 63-65 |
Abstract
At the present time the accepted cosmological picture is that of an infinite and expanding Universe based on Einstein's relativity. Cosmic redshifts are interpreted as galaxies receding from us with speeds that increase with distance, reaching velocities approaching c, the speed of light, and it is believed that we occupy the center of the expansion. Placing outselves at the center, and at relative rest, creates mathematical equations that are conceptually impossible. One can compare it to the difficulties our ancestors faced before Copernicus' time, trying to describe planetary orbits mathematically, with Earth at the center and at rest. The problem is solved by adopting Mach's Principle, which turns the picture around so that our frame of reference is moving with c relative to the rest of the Universe and the proof if found in the physics of atomic orbits, a domain where Einstein's relativistic mechanics fail.