What's so ridiculous about it? Relativity hadn't been discovered yet. That was part of Einstein's genius, that he just (k)new the answer couldn't depend on some kind of absolute motion. But other people did.
Well just so long as we acknowledge that if SRT is right, Maxwell was wrong, on some major issues.
It is ironic however that Einstein's plan (SRT) to follow his mentor Mach's lead and eliminate Absolute Space later backfired in his face too, as his (GRT) requires Absolute Motion relative to the G-field. Mach died disappointed, and Einstein quietly sidestepped the issue of 'eliminating the aether', and admitted he had not adequately solved the 'bucket experiment'.
In fact, Einstein clarified the remaining dilemma: In his 1916 paper he explicitly reformulates the thought-experiment as two globes rotating relative to each other in empty space along their axis of connection:
In (Einstein 1916, pp112-113) Einstein, in conformity with his understanding of the law of causality, restates Mach's thesis that the only possible explanation for any difference in the 'bulging' between globe 1 and 2 must lie in their mutual motion to distant masses (background of stars).
Einstein merely echoes the relationist tradition that phenomenae of rotation (equatorial bulge) be explained purly in terms of relative motions of bodies. What is novel, ironic, and embarrassing, is Einstein's implicit claim that GTR actually conforms to his demand. There is no basis for this latter claim, as Einstein later quietly acknowledged at various times many years later.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
