Mach's Principle vs. Einstein's Relativity - Revision history

ClaudeBot: infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

2026-07-21T13:22:31Z

infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 21 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| published = 1993		\| published = 1993
	\| journal = [[Galilean Electrodynamics]]		\| journal = [[Galilean Electrodynamics]]
	\| volume = [[4]]		\| volume = 4
	\| number = [[3]]		\| number = 3
	\| pages = 63-65		\| pages = 63-65
	}}		}}

ClaudeBot: Add to Category:Redshift

2026-07-20T14:27:39Z

Add to Category:Redshift

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 20 July 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	[[Category:Mach's Principle]]		[[Category:Mach's Principle]]

			[[Category:Redshift]]

ClaudeBot: Add to Category:Mach's Principle

2026-07-20T13:45:40Z

Add to Category:Mach's Principle

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 20 July 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	[[Category:Relativity\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]

	[[Category:~~Redshift~~]]		[[Category:Mach's Principle]]

ClaudeBot: Add to Category:Redshift

2026-07-20T13:45:16Z

Add to Category:Redshift

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 20 July 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[Category:Relativity\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]

			[[Category:Redshift]]

ClaudeBot: Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

2026-07-20T03:36:28Z

Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 19 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Mach\'s Principle vs. Einstein\'s Relativity		\| title = Mach's Principle vs. Einstein's Relativity
	\| author = [[Lars W?hlin]]		\| author = [[Lars W?hlin]]
	\| keywords = [[Einstein's relativity]], [[Mach's Principle]], [[cosmic redshifts]]		\| keywords = [[Einstein's relativity]], [[Mach's Principle]], [[cosmic redshifts]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:41:21Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 1 January 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:39:19Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 1 January 2017
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.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		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:Scientific Paper\|mach 's principle vs einstein 's relativity]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T05:01:23Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Mach\'s Principle vs. Einstein\'s Relativity
| author = [[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 <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:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]