INTL 1:1/130 1:229/2   
   REPLYADDR edprochak@gmail.com   
   REPLYTO 1:229/2.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  30702665   
   REPLY:  478f3444   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   From: Edward Prochak    
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.research   
   Subject: Re: Apparent rotation   
   Date: 12 Jan 2023 08:23:18 GMT   
   Lines: 63   
   Approved: hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de (sci.physics.research)   
   Message-ID:    
   X-Trace: news.dfncis.de 0SMhiCXgYHyrr+lNlzD5bw1uELiOqH9FPnPEo9/   
     Gn5nyuE17DBcYA3xqi66LwIokqY   
   Cancel-Lock: sha1:TZ+OCmngFQJNh5OXbymvPegG4aM=   
   X-Received-Bytes: 3675   
   From: edprochak@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:32:17 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to   
   reply) wrote:   
   > In article , Luigi Fortunati   
   >  writes:   
   >> wugi lunedì 09/01/2023 alle ore 13:15:37 ha scritto:   
   >>   
   >>> I think that, as Richard Livings said elsewhere, acceleration in general   
   >>> and rotation in particular are 'absolute' in the sense of non-inertial.   
   >>> Any inertial system will 'detect' acceleration and rotation, and their   
   >>> 'inertia'.   
   >>>   
   >>> As to why this is so, and whether Mach's principle and far away universe   
   >>> parts should be called for, I doubt it.   
   >>> Now then, how does the EM field 'decide' about its local behaviour and   
   >>> metric? Does Mach and the far away universe possibly intervene here 'in   
   >>> the second degree'? That, I wouldn't know...   
   >>   
   >> Why bother the distant universe if rotation (like any other   
   >> acceleration) are "absolute"?   
   >>   
   >> Matter is made up of atoms with a nucleus inside.   
   >>   
   >> If we rotate the matter (ie the atoms) the nuclei that "float" inside   
   >> them "push" outwards and generate centrifugal force opposed by the   
   >> centripetal force of the molecular bonds.   
   >>   
   >> The presence of these two opposing internal forces of matter is   
   >> confirmed by the internal tension of the rotating bodies.   
      
   > Yes. No-one debates the fact that accelerations are absolute. The   
   > question is WHY that is the case. Imagine an empty universe with one   
   > object in it, say a merry-go-round. Should it be possible to tell if it   
   > is rotating, as it would be under normal conditions? If so, with   
   > respect to what is it rotating? There is nothing else in the Universe.   
      
   But there is no solid object merry-go-round. It consists of atoms.   
      
   >   
   > Some would claim that there would be no way to tell in such a case, i.e.   
   > no inertia. Add a small amount of matter to the universe and there   
   > would be a small amount of inertia. Add more and there would be more.   
   > And so on. That would make sense if inertia is somehow caused by the   
   > presence of other matter, which is the essence of Mach's Principle.   
      
   The point of a macro scale rotating object is that it is not a single object   
   at the atomic and quantum levels. I do not think there is a need to appeal   
   to "other matter" out there in the universe.   
   The other matter consists of the atomic particles within the object.   
      
   > Certainly the Lense-Thirring effect indicates that the idea that   
   > relative rotation has physical effects is not absurd.   
   >   
   > As far as I know the extent to which, if any, Mach's Principle is real   
   > is still an open question.   
      
   Agreed, but I lean toward Mach's Principle being false.   
   >   
   > The alternative seems to be absolute space, which is usually associated   
   > with Newton rather than Einstein.   
      
    I do see the conundrum, but   
   Could we say it is more a flat space-time rather than Newtonian (absolute)   
   space?   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
   SEEN-BY: 229/2 400 426 700   
   PATH: 229/2 426