[quote=hecd2]He did no such thing. Have you actually read his paper, or any part of it other than the concluding paragraph that Robert quotes and you reproduce? If you have read (and understood) it, I must say that I am surprised by how misleading your statement above is. There are two errors of fact in your claim:
a) Thirring did not create a geocentric model and
b) He did not prove that the Coriolis and centrifugal forces are attributed to the rotating cosmic masses in the fixed earth case
Yes I have the paper.
I also said this:
“Thirring was not proposing that the universe rotates. He was testing the results of the theory of general relativity for the presence of the strong principle. Still the solution demonstrates and validates that if one were to transform a coordinate system to a fixed earth, then solve the einsteinian equations, analogous forces to the centrifigal and Corliolis would apprear at the center of the rotating universe.”
I noticed that you did not mention the Rosser quote.This is more direct.
The interpretation of the Thirring results is correct, as evidenced by an authority even greater than you, Max Born.
Max Born. physicist and personal friend of Albert Einstein. He said in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
I did catch the bit about absolute space, and if you read the link I started this with, I do say:
“What is needed ultimately is to get back to an aether based theory of the universe and try to explain physical mechnisms for things like grtavity. Many in quantam mechanics are reintroducing aether (under different names- space foam, quintessence, etc.).”
If you read the paper, he specifically discusses the Corliolis force.
[quote=hecd2]What he actually did was to model the field inside a uniformly rotating infinitesimally thin hollow sphere of uniform surface density, and then model the motion of a point test mass within the sphere.
His result shows that forces appear *like *the centrifugal and Coriolis forces …
‘The fact that in nature we only have been able to observe a radial, …"
I agree that the Thirring model is limited. But Born’s interpretation supports what I am saying, and I went on to say:
“Since Thirring many more sophisticated models of rotating universes have been created. Thirring is the classic solution.”
Thus the Rosser quote, which you totally ignored.
I will look further into EEP.