Quote:
Quote by: 5010  How about a thought experiment?
There are 2 merry-go-rounds attached by a belt so that they always spin in sync. There is a tree nearby.
Two kids arrive and one steps on a merry-go-round. The 2nd kid pushes one and they both start spinning.
Now, according to your semantics, relative to a kid on a merry-go-round the other merry-go-round is swinging around him but not spinning even though different facings become visible as it swings around. Relative to the kid on the merry-go-round, the tree is swinging around him and spinning at the same rate even though the same side is facing at all times. |
I'm not sure I know what you mean here. If both m-g-r's spin in sync, why would they also be swinging around each other?
Quote:
Quote by: 5010 According to your semantics, every time I turn, the whole universe spins, then stops spinning relative to me. |
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would it start and then stop spinning?
Quote:
Quote by: 5010 But others prefer a different semantics. When I turn, I say the universe swings around me but doesn't spin. I say something spins if different faces of it become visible to me.
Semantics are matters of opinion. Neither opinion is right or wrong. We can agree or disagree, but we get bogged down in semantics when we get on the high horse of our chosen semantics instead of trying out the paradigm of the opponent to see if it is at least consistent within their semantics. |
I don't understand what it is that you're trying to get across.