According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 13:26 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:176246e7-0299-4934-9cb2-1e698395c221(a)m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... 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. ============================================== False. Explain to us, in your words, why 2+3 = 6, drosen. ============================================== Explain to us why the precess period at the equator is 0 hours, and at the north or south poles is 12 hours? ============================================== False. Explain to us why the precess period at the equator is 23 hours and 56 minutes, and at the north or south poles is 23 hours and 56 minutes, drosen?
From: valls on 1 Jun 2010 16:40 On 29 mayo, 11:07, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 7:29 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 27 mayo, 12:48, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 3:49 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 25 mayo, 10:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 10:19 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 mayo, 07:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:13 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 21 mayo, 10:22, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 6:27 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 mayo, 13:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 8:19 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > You are accusing then 1684 Newton to make a rather empty statement > > (without any valid argument to support it). The concept of the non- > > existence of a privileged frame is developed precisely by 1905 > > Einstein, and the translation of something to the past of its > > developing epoch is the more dangerous mistake that can be done when > > analysing an old text (but unfortunately a very common one, because it > > is not an easy task at all to consider out of our mind what it is > > already there when reading the old text, and the greater the > > knowledge, the greater the possibility to fall in mistake). > > I am not accusing Newton of making a rather empty statement. > Newton's "absolute frame" is not privileged any more than Einstein's > "stationary frame". In both cases, one frame is selected where the > laws of mechanics (Newton's Principia) are strictly valid. In both > cases, there are an infinite number of frames that also satisfy the > condition that Principia holds true. However, to first order neither > the absolute frame nor the stationary frame are unique in satisfying > the rules of Principia. I cant be in agreement with you about stationary frame being as privileged as the absolute frame. The absolute frame is a unique one, stationary frame can be many, all the Newtonian ones (in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good) by a 1905 Einstein DEFINITION. Then, by definition, stationary frames are ALL the frames that satisfy the rules of Principia and are not the ones eliminated by 1905 Einstein (the absolute frame and the derived from it ones). Why are you saying the contrary? How can be you saying that exist frames satisfying Principia that are not stationary frames? What existing frames are you referring? I remember you that the first thing 1905 Einstein does when exposing his theory, is take out the absolute frame (and then also all the others derived imaginary ones moving with all possible uniform velocities with respect to it). Only remain the real massive bodies themselves to determine real massive Newtonian frames. > The force laws studied by Newton and his contemporaries are > Galilean invariant. I don't know when the concept of Galilean > invariance first arose. However, suppose we have a set of measuring > instruments that are at rest with respect to the absolute frame. One > can construct another set of instruments using a Galilean > transformation that also satisfies the condition that Principia holds > true. So if Newton had constructed a "primed" frame using Galilean > invariants, he could have performed all his calculations from the POV > of this primed frame and still gotten equivalent results. However, > this was not necessary for the calculations that he demonstrated in > Principia. You can have never your absolutely at rest instruments by the simple reason that the absolute frame doesnt exist at all (following 1905 Einstein). But you can suppose it and make all the deductions you want. > I have no references as to the use of the Galilean transformation > before Einstein. I will search for some. Apparently, Newton never > describes the Galilean transformation. Even if Newton had thought of > the Galilean transformation, they would have been anticlimatic. The > main thing he does with Principia is calculate planetary orbits. For > calculating planetary orbits, one absolute space was enough. Even if > he invented the Galilean transformation, it was tangential to the main > points of Principia. Newton was introducing the world to physics. > Mathematical embellishments would only have confused the issues at > that point. We are not in agreement about Newton using his absolute frame to calculate planetary orbits (the non-existing can't be used at all), more probably he uses the frame where the Sun is considered at rest (later more well defined as the Solar System centre of mass inertial frame). > Light does not obey the laws stated in Principia. Certain people > on the forum will say that light does somehow obey Principia, but that > is not true. We can argue the point experiment by experiment, but in > summation the laws of Principia don't apply to light. The laws of > optics are not Galilean invariant. Einstein intentionally searched for > a transformation that would construct a second frame where both > Principia and the Laws of Optics would apply to first order. By sure light doesnt follow Principia as a massive body (both before and after the introduction of the photon concept). 1905 Einstein more important contribution is precisely to conceive that the laws governing light must apply in all Newtonian frames (Physics laws are the same in all Newtonian frames, his 1905 Principle of Relativity). > To satisfy both Principia and the Laws of optics, Einstein > developed the Lorentz transformation. Of course, the Lorentz > transformation had been developed first by Lorentz. Lorentz developed > these equations for a slightly different reasons. Lorentz was seems to > have been concerned about a slight inconsistency between Principia and > the force laws of electrodynamics. Both Lorentz and Einstein take for granted Maxwells equations, and the involved magnetic forces depending on velocity were the problem in the relation with Principia. Einstein opens a new road taking out the ether, but Lorentz continues using it. > I think that characterizes the difference in approach between > Einstein and Lorentz. Einstein was concerned primarily with optics, > and Lorentz was concerned with electromagnetic force laws. > Einstein got full credit in the public eye for special > relativity after he developed general relativity. The argument of "who > deserves credit" for special relativity is interesting, but > unimportant for the discussion at hand. I will not argue for either, > as I am in awe of both of them |:-) I am not interested at all in credit for particular persons, only the real knowledge of Nature must be the goal. I am now supporting 1905 Einstein against 1907 Minkowski and 1916 Einstein! Science is a collective effort that belongs to all human beings. > The idea of Galilean transformation was already in the air soon > after Newton published Principia. What Lorentz and Einstein found was > that the Laws of the universe are invariant to a different > transformation, which is now called the Lorentz transformation. > The invariance of physical law to the Lorentz transformation > turns out to have consequences beyond both optics and the > electrodynamic force laws. Invariance to the Lorentz transformation > apparently extends beyond optics and electrodynamics. The Lorentz > invariance even applies to systems where Principia is totally invalid, > such as quantum mechanical systems. I am avoiding here to talk about the Lorentz transformation, not having yet a definite position about it. For the moment, I note that in 1905R it applies only FROM a stationary system TO a moving one (see paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 paper where it is derived). About Quantum Mechanics, I have already a Schrodinger type equation compatible with 1905R (that includes Gravity). > In any case, the "inertial frame" was fully described without > using the exact phrase in Einstein's 1905 paper. He describes a > stationary frame, which is fully equivalent to the absolute frame > described by Newton. He shows that other frames satisfy the same > conditions as the stationary frame. He refers to them as the "primed > coordinates," but it is the same concept as inertial frame. You are surely referring to the 1905R moving systems. I can accept that stationary system can be identified with today inertial frame, but the moving system case is a different one. I consider that for being an inertial frame internally, a moving system must have the external world provoking in it an approximate almost equal acceleration in all its components (I detailed all this a little more in other posts in this same thread). As I say in a previous comment, I reject completely the equivalence that you are making between stationary frame and absolute frame. > Not all frames are inertial frames in the sense that Einstein > defined inertial frames. If an external force is applied to the > instruments in an inertial frame, the frame will accelerate. Then, the > laws of Principia don't apply in this frame. This was as true for the > universe described by Newton as it is for the universe as described by > Einstein. However, an accelerated frame can approximate an inertial > frame given certain conditions. While one can never totally insulate > instruments from external forces, there are conditions where these > external forces are negligible. Thus, the center of mass of the earth > is sufficiently close to being an inertial frame for certain > experiments, including the GPS satellites. If the external world provokes an approximate almost same acceleration in ALL components (including instruments) of any closed system that belongs to a greater one, it can be considered internally a Newtonian one, even being externally a non-Newtonian one. The magnitude of the external force is not the relevant point, but the same acceleration condition. That is the case for the ECI in the Earth-Moon system, the Earth-Moon system in the Solar System, or the Solar System in the Galaxy. > However, the earth centered system is not an absolute frame. Why > should the earth be any more inertial than any other planet or star in > the galaxy? Total agreement here. In 1905R the absolute frame and all from it derived empty imaginary ones are totally out. > I just am picking a small nit. I agree that the frame centered on > the center of mass of the earth is a sufficiently close to being an > inertial frame for most purposes. The earth centered frame may not be > an ideal inertial frame, but it is for the purposes of current > technology an inertial frame. Only a finite (or an infinite with radial symmetry) whole Universe can be considered an ideal inertial frame (with a centre of mass in absolute rest!). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: BURT on 1 Jun 2010 16:46 On Jun 1, 6:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Everything is flowing through space-time. This flow of energy gives more energy to mass. Flowing energy is more energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: valls on 2 Jun 2010 07:55 On 28 mayo, 19:38, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 28, 7:29 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > [...] > > =================== > > > > > In his 1684 "Principia...", long before the development of > > electromagnetism, Newton starts conceiving the absolute space and the > > absolute time as a privileged and unique real and true inertial frame. > > The movement of any body in that frame is considered the unique real, > > absolute and true one. Any other movement with respect to some other > > thing is considered apparent, relative and false (all this can be read > > without any ambiguity in the 1684 text). The privileged absolute frame > > is absolutely necessary to support the first law of inertia, because a > > material point can be free only being the unique one in the absolute > > space and time (without gravity or any other kind of force). > > You can cherry-pick the story as you please but > Einstein seems to have given Newton more credit > for critical thinking than you do. > I dont understand the meaning of cherry-pick (pardon me, English is not my mother language). If I write something that you are not in agreement, tell me what it is. > <<Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is > unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this > exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the > special physical position of the states of motion of the > inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. > It makes the observable material bodies responsible for > the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet > indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour > of the material point but devises the cause for it > (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically > inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this > reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of > inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted > as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against > one another and not against "space". This interpretation > governs the expecta- tion that accelerated bodies have > concordant accelerating action in the same > sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). > Even if 1921 Einstein if well out of topic, I consider appropriate to make some comments in relation with 1905R. In all 1905 text, the unique reference to the state of movement of an inertial frame is the name stationary used to denote it, that seems to mean a permanent state of rest. Even if 1905 Einstein writes that the denotation is for verbally distinguish it from other systems (the moving system among them, another support for stationary not being equivalent to moving in 1905R), normally the chosen word to denote something has some intention. After 1905 Einstein taking out the absolute frame, the unique one a single (and then totally isolated) material point can be moving with respect to it with a non-zero uniform velocity, it seems natural to think that the inertial state of movement for an inertial system in 1905R is a permanent rest, a stationary system, making then sense the name chosen for it. By the way, that responds in some manner E. Mach demands, because now exist only the material bodies themselves to determine all state of movement, including the rest one, the corresponding to an isolated body set centre of mass determined by all material bodies in the set. In other posts of this thread I show in all detail how the rest mass of a body measures its potential energy following only 1905R, deriving also the formulas that explain atomic clock behaviour in gravitational fields (the ones you help me to put in adequate format years ago). I can advance you that rest mass and inertial mass seem to be the same thing following 1905R (again only rest associated with an inertia determined by all bodies, what seems in line with E. Mach demands). With that result the Mercury perihelion shift is determined with a little more precision than in GR. > This interpretation is even more plausible according to > general relativity which eliminates the distinction between > inertial and gravitational effects. It amounts to stipulating > that, apart from the arbitrariness governed by the free choice > of coordinates, the g ì v -field shall be completely determined > by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in general > relativity by the circumstance that acceleration induction > in accordance with the gravitational field equations really > exists, although of such slight intensity that direct detection > by mechanical experiments is out of the question. <1> > Following 1905R, the distinction between inertia and gravitation seems to be the more adequate alternative, being then no need to put gravitation in the privileged position it has in GR, favouring the integration of all Nature forces. All kind of potential fields are already integrated in a single rest mass that measures its energy (without any arbitrary additive constant that already disappears in the 27Sep1905 paper). The development of a Quantum Mechanics compatible with 1905R also seems to be straightforward, and we have already a relative (to the inertial system) space and time determined only by the involved massive bodies. > Mach's stipulation can be accounted for in the general > theory of relativity by regarding the world in spatial > terms as finite and self-contained. This hypothesis also > makes it possible to assume the mean density of matter in > the world as finite, whereas in a spatially infinite > (quasi-Euclidian) world it should disappear. It cannot, > however, be concealed that to satisfy Mach's postulate in > the manner referred to a term with no experimental basis > whatsoever must be introduced into the field equations, > which term logically is in no way determined by the other > terms in the equations. For this reason this solution of the > "cosmological problem" will not be completely satisfactory for > the time being. >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le... > All the Universe can be modelled by a hierarchy of centre of mass inertial systems (Hierarchical Inertial Systems, HIS), each one considered at rest for its interior and moving with any velocity compatible with Nature laws for its exterior, having each HIS its own different space and time determined by its component bodies. A higher hierarchy HIS is composed by lower hierarchy HIS, being modelled each HIS by a material point. The highest hierarchy HIS used in the modelling of some part of the Universe represents the more complete view of it, being all the others low hierarchy ones not less complete views of its different parts. There exist always a unique HIS representing some specific part of Nature, and every HIS is limited to describe only the movements and interactions (with all Nature forces) of the bodies belonging to its specific body set. Nature laws are the same in all HIS, and this 1905R derived view of the Universe doesnt depend on the finite or infinite character of it. The HIS hierarchy can be extended as necessary according to the always increasing human beings knowledge, without any specific limit, being always every HIS (including the highest hierarchy used one) a finite and self-contained entity. > Sue... RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Sue... on 2 Jun 2010 20:10
On Jun 2, 7:55 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 28 mayo, 19:38, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On May 28, 7:29 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > [...] > > > =================== > > > > In his 1684 "Principia...", long before the development of > > > electromagnetism, Newton starts conceiving the absolute space and the > > > absolute time as a privileged and unique real and true inertial frame.. > > > The movement of any body in that frame is considered the unique real, > > > absolute and true one. Any other movement with respect to some other > > > thing is considered apparent, relative and false (all this can be read > > > without any ambiguity in the 1684 text). The privileged absolute frame > > > is absolutely necessary to support the first law of inertia, because a > > > material point can be free only being the unique one in the absolute > > > space and time (without gravity or any other kind of force). > > > You can cherry-pick the story as you please but > > Einstein seems to have given Newton more credit > > for critical thinking than you do. =============== > > I dont understand the meaning of cherry-pick (pardon me, English is > not my mother language). If I write something that you are not in > agreement, tell me what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCherry_picking&sl=en&tl=es > > > <<Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is > > unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this > > exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the > > special physical position of the states of motion of the > > inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. > > It makes the observable material bodies responsible for > > the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet > > indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour > > of the material point but devises the cause for it > > (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically > > inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this > > reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of > > inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted > > as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against > > one another and not against "space". This interpretation > > governs the expecta- tion that accelerated bodies have > > concordant accelerating action in the same > > sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). > > Even if 1921 Einstein if well out of topic, I consider appropriate to > make some comments in relation with 1905R. > In all 1905 text, the unique reference to the state of movement of > an inertial frame is the name stationary used to denote it, that > seems to mean a permanent state of rest. Even if 1905 Einstein writes > that the denotation is for verbally distinguish it from other > systems (the moving system among them, another support for > stationary not being equivalent to moving in 1905R), normally the > chosen word to denote something has some intention. After 1905 > Einstein taking out the absolute frame, the unique one a single (and > then totally isolated) material point can be moving with respect to it > with a non-zero uniform velocity, it seems natural to think that the > inertial state of movement for an inertial system in 1905R is a > permanent rest, a stationary system, making then sense the name chosen > for it. By the way, that responds in some manner E. Mach demands, > because now exist only the material bodies themselves to determine all > state of movement, including the rest one, the corresponding to an > isolated body set centre of mass determined by all material bodies in > the set. In other posts of this thread I show in all detail how the > rest mass of a body measures its potential energy following only > 1905R, deriving also the formulas that explain atomic clock behaviour > in gravitational fields (the ones you help me to put in adequate > format years ago). I can advance you that rest mass and inertial mass > seem to be the same thing following 1905R (again only rest associated > with an inertia determined by all bodies, what seems in line with E. > Mach demands). With that result the Mercury perihelion shift is > determined with a little more precision than in GR. > > > This interpretation is even more plausible according to > > general relativity which eliminates the distinction between > > inertial and gravitational effects. It amounts to stipulating > > that, apart from the arbitrariness governed by the free choice > > of coordinates, the g ì v -field shall be completely determined > > by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in general > > relativity by the circumstance that acceleration induction > > in accordance with the gravitational field equations really > > exists, although of such slight intensity that direct detection > > by mechanical experiments is out of the question. <1> > > Following 1905R, the distinction between inertia and gravitation seems > to be the more adequate alternative, being then no need to put > gravitation in the privileged position it has in GR, favouring the > integration of all Nature forces. All kind of potential fields are > already integrated in a single rest mass that measures its energy > (without any arbitrary additive constant that already disappears in > the 27Sep1905 paper). The development of a Quantum Mechanics > compatible with 1905R also seems to be straightforward, and we have > already a relative (to the inertial system) space and time determined > only by the involved massive bodies.> Mach's stipulation can be accounted for in the general > > theory of relativity by regarding the world in spatial > > terms as finite and self-contained. This hypothesis also > > makes it possible to assume the mean density of matter in > > the world as finite, whereas in a spatially infinite > > (quasi-Euclidian) world it should disappear. It cannot, > > however, be concealed that to satisfy Mach's postulate in > > the manner referred to a term with no experimental basis > > whatsoever must be introduced into the field equations, > > which term logically is in no way determined by the other > > terms in the equations. For this reason this solution of the > > "cosmological problem" will not be completely satisfactory for > > the time being. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html > All the Universe can be modelled by a hierarchy of centre of mass > inertial systems (Hierarchical Inertial Systems, HIS), each one > considered at rest for its interior and moving with any velocity > compatible with Nature laws for its exterior, having each HIS its own > different space and time determined by its component bodies. When you can shield gravity the same way a camera enclosure shields light, that could be an interesting point of view. For the moment, any loose bits in my camera still fall toward the earth's center so I will have to defer further consideration until that situation changes. > A higher > hierarchy HIS is composed by lower hierarchy HIS, being modelled each > HIS by a material point. The highest hierarchy HIS used in the > modelling of some part of the Universe represents the more complete > view of it, being all the others low hierarchy ones not less complete > views of its different parts. There exist always a unique HIS > representing some specific part of Nature, and every HIS is limited to > describe only the movements and interactions (with all Nature forces) > of the bodies belonging to its specific body set. Nature laws are the > same in all HIS, and this 1905R derived view of the Universe doesnt > depend on the finite or infinite character of it. The HIS hierarchy > can be extended as necessary according to the always increasing human > beings knowledge, without any specific limit, being always every HIS > (including the highest hierarchy used one) a finite and self-contained > entity. Play with some permanent magnets and steel scraps, giving particular attention to the mass of the objects in the theater. See if you can't get beyond the light particle puzzlements of 1905, which for the most part, vanish along with Newton's light corpuscle. Sue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force Emergent gravity http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3 Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062 The Origin of Gravity Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 Sue... > > > Sue... > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |