whiskers

"I am tending to the view that the SS barycenter orbits the Sun rather than the Sun orbits the SS barycenter." Please see what I wrote before re: "A orbits B" is not a thing.

I see a 3-stage model of reality. Somebody please point out to me who has better/best explained this and what it is called. 1) solipsism - there is no way to demonstrate using only experiences, measurements, and logic that the world exists. One can quietly accept this or scoff e.g. "that is not *worth* accepting" but it cannot be refuted or denied. 2) objective world - where science applies - the experiences and measurements are correlated resulting in mathematical laws. 3) other minds - you can accept the reality of the outer world, and deduce physical laws to your heart's content, but you won't end up with proof ( and arguably more importantly, even evidence ) that other minds exist. Particularly if you are confident in the ability of physical laws to explain the phenomena around you, even the behaviors and reports of your neighbor. I note that the New Atheists and the other Materialists tend most of the time to ignore, deny, or just disregard that 2 and 3 are different. Why do they not simply say that neurology determines human behavior? Isn't that what occam's razor requires, rather than saying either that neurology determines mind *and* behavior, or neurology determines mind which then determines behavior in a way no different from what simple physics would describe? If consciousness doesn't *do* anything, that means there is no evidence for it.

Yes so they get more and more out of synch with repeated thrusts, and this becomes analogous to an accelerating spaceship where the clock at the rear and the clock at the front are running at different rates, as near as they can tell.

Recently i spent some time thinking about all this with one of the media flaps about how wrong some % of people are about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. Here's what I came up with: The very idea of "A orbits B" is pre-Newtonian. It reached its apex with Kepler. Once we get the idea of forces, so-called "orbits" turn out to be derivative or merely apparent. The geocentric and heliocentric are simply *models* and have utility for particular practical problems - certainly neither is "true" or "false" thus geocentrists cannot in fact be labeled "wrong" (though in nearly all cases they will turn out to be mighty unsophisticated). We can call the solar system barycenter the "true center" if we like but it is orbiting with other stellar system barycenters around the galactic core and so on and so on. Momentum and kinetic energy are completely related to which coordinate system one measures them in. They might be called "accounting tricks". Here's a comment in a book by Einstein scoffing at geo vs heliocentrism. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9XLht-IYAA7md0.jpg:large

Hi - here is related simple example, still a bit counterintuitive to me. * Train A and Train B are traveling on the same track at the same velocity and agree that their clocks are synchronized. * They have agreed to both exert thrust X at what they both agree is clock time Y which will accelerate them both. * They find after the thrust event at time Y that their clocks no longer appear to be synchronized.

It's important to remember that the people in the trains could say that they are not moving at all and they are not wrong. They find no contraction of anything which is not moving as far as they can tell.