According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 31 May 2010 17:21 On 29 mayo, 08:56, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 6:42 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > On 27 mayo, 12:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 3:49 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > Suppose now that somebody finds the way to explain GR effects (like > > > > > > the ones necessary to adjust GPS clocks in the Earths gravitational > > > > > > field), but using only 1905 Relativity (Newtonian mechanics, Euclidean > > > > > > geometry). Would you consider that a boondoggle? (English is not my > > > > > > mother language, and I dont know the meaning of that word). > > > > > > By my guest. Would love to see it. > > > > > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the > > > > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the > > > > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can > > > > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system, > > > > let be r the distance between M and m. > > > > From the 27Sep1905 paper we know that The mass of a body is a measure > > > > of its energy-content. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K+U, where K is > > > > the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. > > > > This is incorrect. What was proposed, in fact, was that the total > > > energy of a body was > > > E = mc^2 + K + U. > > > You have misidentified mc^2 as being part of U, when it is not. > > > What you say is absolutely impossible. > > I'm sorry, but once again, you are a victim of reading papers in > isolation, without the associated context. > I am the one from the very beginning talking about the need to read an old paper in its adequate historic context, and you seem to consider that to read an old paper in isolation. That is not the case, to read a paper in its historical context implies to know all its past and all its future (exactly the contrary of what your in isolation seem to mean), the past to use in the interpretation, and the future to NOT use in the interpretation (you cant suppose in the mind of the author a concept that doesnt exist yet). The associated context of a paper is all what exist in its past, NEVER the concepts developed in his future. If you say that in the 27Sep1905 paper was proposed that E=mc^2+K+U, this is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for more than one reason. I will enumerate here 3 of them: 1. The Conservation Principle of Energy is expressed in 1905 as Total energy=Kinetic energy+Potential energy, and it is used as a valid (true) premise in the derivation of the mass-energy relationship developed (for first time) in the paper (see by yourself the H-E=K+C : H = K + (E + C) in the text, supported by 1905 Einstein by only a it is clear comment, normally used when an author is referring to something that he assumes is well-known by all potential readers, in this case, the conservation Principle of Energy). How can you conceive that a premise can result changed (in an essential way, with the addition of a totally new rest energy totally independent from K and U) by a correct derivation that uses it (from E=K+U deriving that E=mc^2+K+U)? ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. 2. An expression like mc^2 doesnt appear at all in the 1905 text. But even assuming that the energy of the body at rest is mc^2 (where m is its rest mass), Einstein derivation starts precisely with the denotation of E as the energy of the body at rest. How can you explain now that E=E+U for the body at rest (K=0) and E=E+K+U for the moving body? ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. 3. The rest energy concept as a new kind of energy independent from kinetic K and potential U doesnt exist at all in 1905. It is a concept that starts its development precisely with the paper we are analysing. How can you pretend now to use that concept in the interpretation of this same paper? ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. > Moreover, you accuse me of reading something into a paper that is not > there, and then you excuse yourself for reading potential energy into > a paper where it is not mentioned at all. > The phrase (words) potential energy is not used in the text, but the potential energy CONCEPT is out of any doubt in it as a very essential one. Is it not sufficient to you the conservation Principle of Energy used as a valid premise? Read by yourself the text (at the end of page 1) The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to both systems of co- ordinates. Have you any doubt about that principle being expressed in 1905 as Total energy= Kinetic energy +Potential energy? Read (always by yourself, not simply believing in what others say) the following text (about the middle of page 2): Thus it is clear that the difference H-E can differ from the kinetic energy K of the body, with respect to the other system (xi,eta,zeta), only by an additive constant C, which depends on the choice of the arbitrary additive constants of the energies H and E. How many different kind of energies with ARBITRARY ADDITIVE CONSTANTS do you know in 1905 (or even today)? Can you reject that 1905 Einstein is managing here POTENTIAL ENERGY? I am open to consider any other different kind of energy that you can suggest as a different valid interpretation. > The lesson here is acquiring the proper context, so that you can > *correctly* read things into papers that are not said. You could use > some improvement on this front. Yes, the lesson here is acquiring the proper context. I just showed you the contradictions that arise when somebody uses the future in the interpretation of an old text, violating the more elemental logic rules. I am not accusing you of that. You are simply repeating what other (surely many years ago) did before you, without understanding yet the big mistake involved. > > Strange at it can seem, an > > expression as mc^2 doesnt appear at all in the only 3 short pages > > paper. That makes me to think that you are repeating what others say > > about the 27Sep1905 Einsteins paper, without reading by yourself the > > original one (I apologize you in advance if am wrong about that, but > > that is what you write suggest me). Whatever the case, the paper can > > be obtained athttp://www.fourmilab.ch > > I encourage you to read or re-read it. We need here a very careful > > historic interpretation of the text. I start doing it for you. > > The more relevant part of the text (between [ ], page 2 of 3) is the > > following (I made some minor non-essential changes with comments > > between { } that identify the frames): > > > [ H and E are energy values of the same body referred to two systems > > of co-ordinates which are in motion relative to each other, the body > > being at rest in one of the two systems {body with total energy E}. > > Thus it is clear that the difference H E can differ from the > > kinetic energy K of the body, with respect to the other system {body > > with total energy H}, only by an additive constant C, which depends on > > the choice of the arbitrary additive constants of the energies H and > > E. Thus we may place H E = K + C ] > > > Let us put for a future reference the formula as: H = K + (E + C) > > > Even if in the text the phrase potential energy doesnt appear, the > > management of the arbitrary additive constants energies put out of any > > doubt that potential energy is present (in 1905, and perhaps also > > today, the unique kind of energy in Physics with arbitrary additive > > constants is the potential one). Another strong argument is that in > > 1905 the conservation Principle of Energy (considered valid by 1905 > > Einstein in the two frames according to his Principle of Relativity) > > is expressed as > > > Total energy = Kinetic energy + Potential energy > > > What coincides exactly with its formula > > > H = K + (E + C) > > > Where E is the Potential energy with its characteristic arbitrary > > additive constant C. In > > the frame the body is at rest, its Total energy coincides with its > > Potential energy (Kinetic energy=0), the unique kind of energy a rest > > body can has in 1905 to add it with its Kinetic energy to obtain its > > Total energy. > > > The today rest energy concept with no relation at all with Potential > > and Kinetic energies doesnt exist yet when 1905 Einstein is writing > > his paper. We cant use it then to interpret the paper content, and to > > say that in the paper is proposed that Total energy = Rest > > energy(mc^2) + Kinetic energy + Potential energy is only a complete > > falsehood that you can verify by yourself. The true is that in the > > text the Conservation Principle of Energy is taken for granted and > > used as a starting point in the unique possible way compatible with > > the historic context: > > Total energy=Kinetic energy + Potential energy > > > > And in fact, you should review what the allowed contributions of U > > > are, from classical mechanics. > > > 1905 Einstein derivation is totally a universal one, doesnt put any > > restriction at all on kind of potential energies. All of them are > > included, known or for known (nuclear potential energy is not known > > in1905)> It simply isn't true that just any old thing that is not associated > > > with K are then U. > > > In the text exist no reference at all about a thing not associated > > with K being potential energy. Why do you say that it is not true? Who > > is saying that it is true? What the text implies is that rest energy > > and potential energy is one and the same thing, what simply coincides > > with the classical concept that the energy a rest body has is denoted > > potential energy. The E is declared from the beginning the energy of > > the body at rest, I dont find any other alternative different from to > > interpret E as what today is denoted rest energy. And the E is in the > > place corresponding to the potential energy on the classical > > expression for the Conservation Principle of Energy, including its > > characteristic arbitrary additive constant energy C. Revise the > > conclusion of the paper: The mass of a body is a measure of its > > energy-content. And if the body is at rest The (rest) mass of a body > > is a measure of its (potential) energy-content, because that > > conclusion is derived using precisely the conservation Principle of > > Energy as Total energy=Kinetic energy + Potential energy.> A potential energy requires a connection with a *conservative force*, > > > and one that can generate recoverable work. > > > Of course, that is only classical mechanics (Newtonian), the one that > > hold true (by definition) in all 1905R stationary systems.> The term you've suggested -- m(r)c^2 -- does not meet those criteria. > > > I have suggested nothing, that mass measures energy (multiplying it by > > c^2) is the principal conclusion in the 1905 Einsteins paper. I am > > also not the one saying that rest mass measures potential energy, you > > can see the derivation in the paper. If you claim some error in the > > paper (respecting the historical context, of course), point which is > > it. If you cant do it, then wait for the consequences that real > > experiments can support or not. > > Consider the conversion of a pair electron-positron (starting at rest, > > with infinite distance between them) in 2 photons. Experiments show > > that the rest energy of both particles is equal to the energy of the > > resulting photons. At the beginning we have an electric field that > > disappears completely when the two photos are formed. How can explain > > you that flagrant violation of the Conservation Principle of Energy? > > (the electrostatic energy of the original field, simply disappears > > converting in nothing?) > > > > The rest of this paragraph then falls. > > > You are not interested in the consequences of rest mass measuring > > potential energy? If 1905 Einstein derivation is wrong, more probably > > its consequences cant match with the real world. But what can you say > > is the match is obtained? > > > > > If the body is at rest, > > > > K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass. In the case we are > > > > addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r) c^2, where m_0(r) > > > > is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum light speed. We know > > > > that the gravitational potential energy increases when r increases. > > > > Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is then m_0m c^2, > > > > where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of the rest mass > > > > m_0. We have then > > > > U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 (GM/r)m_0(r) > > > > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, > > > > and (GM/r) is the gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed > > > > arbitrary value 0 at r infinite. As you can see, U(r) takes the very > > > > definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r infinite. With some simple > > > > algebraic handling we obtain > > > > m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2) > > > > We have then derived from 1905R how the rest mass of a small body > > > > changes as a function of its position r in the central gravitational > > > > field of a great mass M body. Note the absent of any constant > > > > arbitrary potential energy and the presence of an ABSOLUTE zero > > > > potential energy point at r=0. If M and m are the Earth and an > > > > electron, m_0m is the ordinary rest mass of a free electron (its > > > > maximal value at r infinite). The frequency emitted by an atomic clock > > > > is proportional to the rest mass of the electron involved in the > > > > change of state. In GR the rest mass is supposed a constant an > > > > intrinsic electron attribute, justifying the change in frequency with > > > > the warp of the space-time provoked by M. As you see, the things in > > > > 1905R are very much simple. > > > > I left to you the verification that the change of frequency predicted > > > > by 1905R coincides with the GR one in all the range of practical r > > > > values in real experiments like the Pound&Rebka one. By the way, the > > > > 1905R formula applies for ALL values of r from 0 to infinite, while > > > > the GR one has a limited range of application owed to the presence in > > > > it of a singularity that is absent in the 1905R one. > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 1 Jun 2010 09:31 On 27 mayo, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 27, 2:04 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 mayo, 19:23, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 5:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > > No, because they aren't inertial, are they? > > > > > > > Of course that they are inertial ones, or maybe consider you that an > > > > > > inertial frame is only a mathematical entity? The Solar System is the > > > > > > more exact real inertial system used by men. And we can make a similar > > > > > > remark referring to the GPS ECI. By the way, they are both centre of > > > > > > mass inertial systems, supported by huge experimental evidence. > > > > > > The earth moves on an elliptical path around the moon. > > > > > A surf fisherman can perform gravito-inertial experiments > > > > > to detect that motion. (sit still while boots dry) > > > > > Hello Sue. > > > > Both Earth and Moon are moving in an elliptical path around their > > > > common Centre of Mass (CM). By the way, that CM is inside the Earth, > > > > but not in the Earths own centre of mass. The Moon seems provoking a > > > > sufficient almost equal acceleration in all GPS clocks (the same > > > > remark for all the rest of the Universe) to be ignored in the GPS > > > > function. With a Moon with a larger mass, surely the inertial system > > > > used in GPS would be de Earth-Moon centre of mass. For a future Solar > > > > System GPS, its centre of mass inertial frame MUST be used. You get my > > > > point? > > > > No... Either you have a description for inertial motion or > > > you don't. The example you offered seems in conflict with > > > the principle of relativity. > > > I only describe a very well-known Earth-Moon motion of today > > Astronomy. In 1905 Relativity, the rotating Earth (without Moon, the > > today denoted GPS ECI) appears at the end of paragraph 4 of the > > 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper as the stationary system (a one in which > > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, let us denote it > > Newtonian), being a clock at the equator (part of the ECI) the moving > > system(by the way, with a CIRCULAR motion). In no part of the 1905 > > text we find some requirement about the type of frame movement to be > > Newtonian. More ever, doesnt exist at all any general indication > > about how we can obtain such type of frame. What conflict with the > > same Physics laws in all Newtonian frames are you talking about? > > I gave the example that a surf fisherman can detect the > elliptical motion of the earth by observing the tides. > One violation is sufficient to demonstrate that your > new definition of inertial motion fails. > Defining me inertial motion? I am only referring to what 1905 Einstein denote stationary system, a reference frame in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. For a shorter reference I denote also it Newtonian, that by sure is not an original one, and much less a new definition of inertial motion. I also point that 1905 Einstein says nothing about the motion of a stationary system. Be explicit and make the corresponding reference to the 1905 text. What thing 1905 Einstein says that you consider fails by the detection of the elliptical motion of the Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > > > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > > > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > > > > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > > > > > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > > > > > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > > > > > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > > > > > Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of > > > > > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > > > > > same form in all inertial frames. >> > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > > > > > That text doesnt correspond to 1905 Relativity, the topic in this > > > > thread (surely it corresponds to 1916 Special Relativity). In the GPS > > > > ECI inertial frame (used by 1905 Einstein, end of paragraph 4 of the > > > > 30June1905 text), it is impossible to make any physical experiment > > > > with the Moon or the Sun (or any other body not taken into account > > > > when computing the ECI centre of mass). > > > > Please accept my apologies for interrupting your walk down > > > memory lane with notions that have the benefit of over > > > 100 years of review and experiment. > > > You seem confused in what I am doing. > > Ah! We agree on something. :-) > > > I am not addressing at all > > post-1905 Relativity (SR and GR), rejecting always any interpretation > > of what I denote 1905 Relativity with concepts developed in its future > > (including the 1907 Minkowski view and all the rest of SR and GR). As > > we are in 2010, your referred 100 years of review and experiment are > > obviously in the future of 1905 Relativity, and by that simple reason > > must be maintained out of any valid interpretation of 1905 Relativity. > > Is that sufficiently clear for you? > > If 1905 Relativity in its limited historic context (Newtonian > > mechanics, Cartesian coordinates, Euclidian geometry) has any value at > > all to contribute the solution of today Physics problems, is another > > very different story. I am convinced that 1905 Relativity interpreted > > only in its own historic context can be used successfully for that > > purposes. > > You want to argue that Einstein's 1905 paper is a theory of > relativity even tho the author claims otherwise? Your true > calling may be in law or politics. > I dont care at all about names, they can be totally arbitrary. I denote 1905 Relativity what Einstein make in that year, using the word relativity because it is a coined one by history. I dont understand at all why you talk now about law or politics. > Have you studied Michigan vs. Michigan in preparation for > your arguments? :-))http://www.scrp.us/larger3.asp?go=37 > I have no idea at all about what is you referring here. > > > > > You seem to be saying we can reject the contemporary statement > > > of the principle of relativity and regain something from views > > > of the early 1900s but it is certainly not clear to me what > > > was lost. > > > > Sue... > > > I am not talking about any rejection at all of any contemporary > > statement. But if following 1905 Relativity, results can be obtained > > of superior scientific quality than similar contemporary ones, by sure > > the last will be substituted by the first (including your referred > > Principle of Relativity if that were the case) following the natural > > logic of science development. > > Does the 1905 paper even claim to be a theory of > relativity? If so that claim is short lived. > It is denoted historically as theory of relativity, and we find in the 1905 text what is denoted as Principle of Relativity. I cant guess what meaning are you implying when writing theory of relativity (without ). > <<This circularity in the definition of inertia and > the inability to justify the privileged position > held by inertial worldlines in special relativity > were among the problems that led Einstein in the > years following 1905 to seek a broader and more > coherent context for the laws of physics. In the > introduction of his 1916 review paper on general > relativity he wrote > We havent yet worldlines or special relativity in 1905 Relativity. All your last comment is out of the topic in this thread. > "The weakness of the principle of inertia lies > in this, that it involves an argument in a > circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it > is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that > it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the > fact that it moves without acceleration." > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > You continue out of topic. > > Sue, do you remember that (many?) years ago, you helped me putting in > > a more clear form formulas derived only from 1905 Relativity for the > > change in the frequency of an atomic clock owed to a change in the > > gravitational potential? > > That credit is not mine. I may have offered Lev Okun's > paper which is now supported by years of GPS operation. > I am referring only to the change in writing format. > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 > > My memory for every poster's views is not very good > and for posters that stopped reading in 1905 it is > nearly useless. > Who stop reading in 1905? The correct interpretation of an old text (without using concepts developed in his future), requires the knowledge of ALL its past and ALL its future. The past, to make or accept an interpretation that uses only it; the future, to reject any interpretation that uses it (including the ones of the same author). > Sue... RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 1 Jun 2010 10:31 On May 28, 7:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 11:06 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > 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) > > Indeed, and again this points to the problem of reading papers in > isolation, and also considering a seminal paper to be the complete > presentation of a theory. The "1905R" paper you mention is NOT a > complete explication of special relativity, let alone relativity. It > is the FIRST explication of special relativity, and as such it has a > number of hanging threads, unfinished business, only partly explicated > answers, superficially understood and explained concepts, and so on. > > For example, the 1905R paper makes a statement about the laws of > physics in *inertial* reference frames, which had a very well > understood meaning in physics well before this paper, and was not > replaced in meaning by this paper. However, as you noted, Einstein > attempted to bend this statement to apply the principle to a > NONinertial frame, that inhabited by a clock at the Earth's equator. Actually he did not make such a mistake but he brushed over the explanation a little too fast because he over-estimated his readers; what was immediately clear for him isn't immediately clear for everyone (indeed I also had to think about it before it was clear to me). Harald > This iffy application was noted by people working on relativity after > this paper, including Einstein himself, and there were a couple of > outcomes from this specific example. One was the more complete > calculation of the effect per general relativity. Another was the > discovery that accelerating reference frames could be analyzed with > care using special relativity. Both these results came well after the > 1905R paper, but are both part of relativity -- or, more > appropriately, part of the relativistic aspects of nature that were > being discovered by physicists in this time period. > > PD
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 11:10 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:0c582632-c5f3-42f9-9905-b9619ad06b4f(a)e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... | Actually he did not make such a mistake That's another of your blunders.
From: Darwin123 on 1 Jun 2010 11:22
On May 28, 5:57 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:8b198c33-a9b6-43ed-aea5-1cecd7fa7158(a)c22g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > I made a mistake. The maximum precession is at the poles, not the > equator. So here are my corrected questions. > Explain to us, in your words, why a Foucault pendulum has a > precessing period between 0 and 24 hours. Explain to us why the > precess period at the equator is 0 hours, and at the north or south > poles is 24 hours. > ============================================== > False. Explain to us, in your words, why a Foucault pendulum has a precessing period between 0 and 24 hours. Explain to us why the precess period at the equator is 0 hours, and at the north or south poles is 12 hours? |