According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Darwin123 on 27 May 2010 15:56 On May 27, 10:08 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 25 mayo, 19:16, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 25, 5:42 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 21 mayo, 15:00, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 20, 6:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 20 mayo, 11:57, Darwin123 <drosen0....(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 20, 12:28 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 20 mayo, 08:50, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:> On May 20, 3:19 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: He simply denotes stationary frame a reference one > in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (the first > By the way, the presence of an external force accelerating > the centre of mass of some inertial system doesnt affect at all the > holding of Newtons laws in it when the same acceleration is shared by > all the bodies composing the system. By the way, this statement is not true. If we have a set of measuring instruments (clocks and rulers) that accelerate in the exact same way relative to the stationary frame, as defined by Einstein, then each is acted on by an outside "force". Each an every instrument in this frame has to be subject to a force equal to the mass of this instrument times this acceleration. If there is no such force, then the instruments are not obeying the first and second laws. If these instruments are used to examine another body to which no force is applied, then these instruments will determine that this new body is accelerating in a direction equal and opposite the acceleration of the frame. The acceleration of this new body, isolated from forces, violates Newton's first law. A body in motion without any outside force accelerated. Thus, the acceleration of the instruments relative to the stationary frame can be measured using an accelerometer. The accelerometer is a device that uses a body that is isolated from the forces that accelerate the instruments in the accelerated frame. For instance, suppose we have a set of positively charged clocks and rulers accelerated by a homogeneous and stationary electric field. Now, it is impossible to measure the acceleration using any of these positively charge instruments. However, we can take another body and place it in an enclosed metal container. Then, this body won't be accelerated by the electric field. It hits the side of the metal container. The impact tells us the acceleration of the frame. 1) A body in motion tends to remain in motion, unless acted on by some outside force. Ever
From: valls on 28 May 2010 09:55 On 27 mayo, 10:52, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 24, 12:47 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 21 mayo, 04:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > > > > > By the way, we are considering here only 1905 Relativity (and > > > > I was born long after that epoch). 1905 Einstein can support only 1905 > > > > Relativity. > > > > Exactly, that is what I referred to. His purpose was to show how: > > > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" > > > > with the clarification: > > > > "In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish > > > this system of co-ordinates *verbally* from others which will be > > > introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.'' " > > > And the stationary system is for 1905 Einstein a one in which the > > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good and a time can be > > determined applying his clock synchronization procedure, i.e., > > according to our previous considerations, a centre of mass inertial > > frame corresponding to a body set with at least two bodies.> That is at odds with your statement that: > > > > > > > "the moving system must be always part > > > > > > of the stationary system, and a stationary system moving with > > > > > > respect to a moving system at rest is nothing more that a huge > > > > > > absurd [..]. > > > What contradiction do you find between that statement and 1905 > > Einstein? > > In SRT we are free to choose which Newtonian coordinate system we call > "moving" and which one "stationary"; as they are equally valid for the > laws of physics, not one of the two is preferred. The only way in > which "mass" is relevant is that it is convenient to choose a high > mass object as approximation for a Newtonian reference system. That is > at odds with your introduction of "body sets" and your preference for > calling certain "centre of mass" systems "stationary" and not > "moving". And here below you do it again... > We are not addressing here SR theory, but 1905R one. That they are different theories can be checked very easily. 1916 Einstein is the one introducing by first time the word Special, transforming the previous Relativity in SR according to the needs of his new GR. Gravity is eliminated then, declaring it out of the scope of SR. But Einstein (or any other) cant change history, and the presence of Gravity in 1905R is out of any doubt. Gravity cant be separated from Newtonian mechanics, and the stationary system of 1905R is defined as one in which the equation of Newtonian mechanics hold good. We can identify then stationary system with Newtonian system (following 1905 Einstein). I dont understand why you say that a high mass object approximates a Newtonian system. The centre of mass system corresponding to ANY body set composed by bodies with ANY mass can be already a Newtonian system long before 1905 Einstein. I am NOT the one introducing body sets that determine Newtonian systems, and I am also NOT the one calling a Newtonian system stationary. It is 1905 Einstein who define stationary system as a Newtonian one! And having put out 1905 Einstein all empty reference frames without massive bodies (the Newtons absolute one and with it all the derived ones moving with respect to it with all possible uniform velocities), only remain de centre of mass Newtonian systems as the stationary systems. And exists a different one for every possible different body set. In 1905R, having you any two different Newtonian systems A and B, you are NOT free to choose which one is moving and which one is stationary. Let us explain why with a simple example. Suppose de body set of A is the single Sun, and the one of B the system Earth- Moon. You cant consider B (Earth-Moon) stationary and A (Sun) moving!(remember Galileo). The unique possible stationary system here is the one having as its body set ALL the bodies involved (Sun , Earth and Moon) with a new CM stationary and all its components moving, the Earth-Moon and the Sun, having the first a greater velocity. The Earth and the Moon are both moving with respect to the stationary Earth-Moon system (the same Earth-Moon that is moving in the other system!). See how the mass of the bodies decides all in 1905R (the clock at the pole is the unique at rest, the one at the equator is the unique moving). I suppose you already understand why in 1905R the moving system must be always a part of the stationary system, without any contradiction at all. By the way, Physics laws remain being the same in all Newtonian systems. (I have avoided here the word hierarchy for the benefit of other readers not knowing its meaning for us). > Regards, > Harald > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 28 May 2010 10:01 On May 28, 8:55 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 27 mayo, 10:52, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On May 24, 12:47 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 21 mayo, 04:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > > By the way, we are considering here only 1905 Relativity (and > > > > > I was born long after that epoch). 1905 Einstein can support only 1905 > > > > > Relativity. > > > > > Exactly, that is what I referred to. His purpose was to show how: > > > > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > > > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" > > > > > with the clarification: > > > > > "In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish > > > > this system of co-ordinates *verbally* from others which will be > > > > introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.'' " > > > > And the stationary system is for 1905 Einstein a one in which the > > > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good and a time can be > > > determined applying his clock synchronization procedure, i.e., > > > according to our previous considerations, a centre of mass inertial > > > frame corresponding to a body set with at least two bodies.> That is at odds with your statement that: > > > > > > > > "the moving system must be always part > > > > > > > of the stationary system, and a stationary system moving with > > > > > > > respect to a moving system at rest is nothing more that a huge > > > > > > > absurd [..]. > > > > What contradiction do you find between that statement and 1905 > > > Einstein? > > > In SRT we are free to choose which Newtonian coordinate system we call > > "moving" and which one "stationary"; as they are equally valid for the > > laws of physics, not one of the two is preferred. The only way in > > which "mass" is relevant is that it is convenient to choose a high > > mass object as approximation for a Newtonian reference system. That is > > at odds with your introduction of "body sets" and your preference for > > calling certain "centre of mass" systems "stationary" and not > > "moving". And here below you do it again... > > We are not addressing here SR theory, but 1905R one. That they are > different theories can be checked very easily. No, they are not. They are different presentations of growing sophistication of the SAME theory. > 1916 Einstein is the > one introducing by first time the word Special, transforming the > previous Relativity in SR according to the needs of his new GR. > Gravity is eliminated then, declaring it out of the scope of SR. But > Einstein (or any other) cant change history, and the presence of > Gravity in 1905R is out of any doubt. Gravity cant be separated from > Newtonian mechanics, and the stationary system of 1905R is defined > as one in which the equation of Newtonian mechanics hold good. We > can identify then stationary system with Newtonian > system (following 1905 Einstein). > > I dont understand why you say that a high mass object approximates > a Newtonian system. The centre of mass system corresponding to ANY > body set composed by bodies with ANY mass can be already a Newtonian > system long before 1905 Einstein. I am NOT the one introducing body > sets that determine Newtonian systems, and I am also NOT the one > calling a Newtonian system stationary. It is 1905 Einstein who > define stationary system as a Newtonian one! And having put out 1905 > Einstein all empty reference frames without massive bodies (the > Newtons absolute one and with it all the derived ones moving with > respect to it with all possible uniform velocities), only remain de > centre of mass Newtonian systems as the stationary systems. And > exists a different one for every possible different body set. > > In 1905R, having you any two different Newtonian systems A and B, you > are NOT free to choose which one is moving and which one is > stationary. Let us explain why with a simple example. Suppose de > body set of A is the single Sun, and the one of B the system Earth- > Moon. You cant consider B (Earth-Moon) stationary and A (Sun) > moving!(remember Galileo). The unique possible stationary system > here is the one having as its body set ALL the bodies involved (Sun , > Earth and Moon) with a new CM stationary and all its components > moving, the Earth-Moon and the Sun, having the first a greater > velocity. The Earth and the Moon are both moving with respect to the > stationary Earth-Moon system (the same Earth-Moon that is moving in > the other system!). See how the mass of the bodies decides all in > 1905R (the clock at the pole is the unique at rest, the one at the > equator is the unique moving). I suppose you already understand why in > 1905R the moving system must be always a part of the stationary > system, without any contradiction at all. By the way, Physics laws > remain being the same in all Newtonian systems. > (I have avoided here the word hierarchy for the benefit of other > readers not knowing its meaning for us). > > > Regards, > > Harald > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Sue... on 28 May 2010 10:15 On May 28, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:55 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 27 mayo, 10:52, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 12:47 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 21 mayo, 04:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > > > By the way, we are considering here only 1905 Relativity (and > > > > > > I was born long after that epoch). 1905 Einstein can support only 1905 > > > > > > Relativity. > > > > > > Exactly, that is what I referred to. His purpose was to show how: > > > > > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > > > > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" > > > > > > with the clarification: > > > > > > "In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish > > > > > this system of co-ordinates *verbally* from others which will be > > > > > introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.'' " > > > > > And the stationary system is for 1905 Einstein a one in which the > > > > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good and a time can be > > > > determined applying his clock synchronization procedure, i.e., > > > > according to our previous considerations, a centre of mass inertial > > > > frame corresponding to a body set with at least two bodies.> That is at odds with your statement that: > > > > > > > > > "the moving system must be always part > > > > > > > > of the stationary system, and a stationary system moving with > > > > > > > > respect to a moving system at rest is nothing more that a huge > > > > > > > > absurd [..]. > > > > > What contradiction do you find between that statement and 1905 > > > > Einstein? > > > > In SRT we are free to choose which Newtonian coordinate system we call > > > "moving" and which one "stationary"; as they are equally valid for the > > > laws of physics, not one of the two is preferred. The only way in > > > which "mass" is relevant is that it is convenient to choose a high > > > mass object as approximation for a Newtonian reference system. That is > > > at odds with your introduction of "body sets" and your preference for > > > calling certain "centre of mass" systems "stationary" and not > > > "moving". And here below you do it again... > > > We are not addressing here SR theory, but 1905R one. That they are > > different theories can be checked very easily. ================== > > No, they are not. They are different presentations of growing > sophistication of the SAME theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment Sue... > > > 1916 Einstein is the > > one introducing by first time the word Special, transforming the > > previous Relativity in SR according to the needs of his new GR. > > Gravity is eliminated then, declaring it out of the scope of SR. But > > Einstein (or any other) cant change history, and the presence of > > Gravity in 1905R is out of any doubt. Gravity cant be separated from > > Newtonian mechanics, and the stationary system of 1905R is defined > > as one in which the equation of Newtonian mechanics hold good. We > > can identify then stationary system with Newtonian > > system (following 1905 Einstein). > > > I dont understand why you say that a high mass object approximates > > a Newtonian system. The centre of mass system corresponding to ANY > > body set composed by bodies with ANY mass can be already a Newtonian > > system long before 1905 Einstein. I am NOT the one introducing body > > sets that determine Newtonian systems, and I am also NOT the one > > calling a Newtonian system stationary. It is 1905 Einstein who > > define stationary system as a Newtonian one! And having put out 1905 > > Einstein all empty reference frames without massive bodies (the > > Newtons absolute one and with it all the derived ones moving with > > respect to it with all possible uniform velocities), only remain de > > centre of mass Newtonian systems as the stationary systems. And > > exists a different one for every possible different body set. > > > In 1905R, having you any two different Newtonian systems A and B, you > > are NOT free to choose which one is moving and which one is > > stationary. Let us explain why with a simple example. Suppose de > > body set of A is the single Sun, and the one of B the system Earth- > > Moon. You cant consider B (Earth-Moon) stationary and A (Sun) > > moving!(remember Galileo). The unique possible stationary system > > here is the one having as its body set ALL the bodies involved (Sun , > > Earth and Moon) with a new CM stationary and all its components > > moving, the Earth-Moon and the Sun, having the first a greater > > velocity. The Earth and the Moon are both moving with respect to the > > stationary Earth-Moon system (the same Earth-Moon that is moving in > > the other system!). See how the mass of the bodies decides all in > > 1905R (the clock at the pole is the unique at rest, the one at the > > equator is the unique moving). I suppose you already understand why in > > 1905R the moving system must be always a part of the stationary > > system, without any contradiction at all. By the way, Physics laws > > remain being the same in all Newtonian systems. > > (I have avoided here the word hierarchy for the benefit of other > > readers not knowing its meaning for us). > > > > Regards, > > > Harald > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > >
From: valls on 28 May 2010 12:06
On 28 mayo, 09:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:55 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 27 mayo, 10:52, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 12:47 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:> On 21 mayo, 04:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > > > By the way, we are considering here only 1905 Relativity (and > > > > > > I was born long after that epoch). 1905 Einstein can support only 1905 > > > > > > Relativity. > > > > > > Exactly, that is what I referred to. His purpose was to show how: > > > > > > "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > > > > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" > > > > > > with the clarification: > > > > > > "In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish > > > > > this system of co-ordinates *verbally* from others which will be > > > > > introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.'' " > > > > > And the stationary system is for 1905 Einstein a one in which the > > > > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good and a time can be > > > > determined applying his clock synchronization procedure, i.e., > > > > according to our previous considerations, a centre of mass inertial > > > > frame corresponding to a body set with at least two bodies.> That is at odds with your statement that: > > > > > > > > > "the moving system must be always part > > > > > > > > of the stationary system, and a stationary system moving with > > > > > > > > respect to a moving system at rest is nothing more that a huge > > > > > > > > absurd [..]. > > > > > What contradiction do you find between that statement and 1905 > > > > Einstein? > > > > In SRT we are free to choose which Newtonian coordinate system we call > > > "moving" and which one "stationary"; as they are equally valid for the > > > laws of physics, not one of the two is preferred. The only way in > > > which "mass" is relevant is that it is convenient to choose a high > > > mass object as approximation for a Newtonian reference system. That is > > > at odds with your introduction of "body sets" and your preference for > > > calling certain "centre of mass" systems "stationary" and not > > > "moving". And here below you do it again... > > > We are not addressing here SR theory, but 1905R one. That they are > > different theories can be checked very easily. > > No, they are not. They are different presentations of growing > sophistication of the SAME theory. > Comment then my arguments showing why they are different theories. Explain to me then why being Gravity out of the scope of SR, in the 1905R we find as an example the rotating Earth as the stationary system and a clock at the equator as the moving system gravitational centripetal accelereted with a CIRCULAR trajectory! Being the Earth also gravitational centripetal accelerated by the Sun, explain to me what kind of inertial systems are managing 1905 Einstein with Gravity present. Where are the movements with uniform linear velocities characteristic of inertial frames in SR? Can you consider the (moving) clock at the equator at rest, with the clock (at rest in the pole) moving with respect to it? Are not all inertial frames equivalent ones? Are not all of them equivalent to describe our Universe? Try to describe the Sun's trajectory in the GPS ECI frame, the same one that is the stationary system in the 1905R example. When you showed me the Sun's trajectory in the ECI I will trust in you when saying that SR and 1905R are the same theory. If you can't do it, you must explain me in detail why it is imposible to describe the Sun's trajectory in the ECI without violating the Newton's laws that define an stationary system in 1905R. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |