According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 3 Jun 2010 08:41 On 2 jun, 19:10, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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&lay... > > > > > > > > > > <<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. > > 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. > Precisely because gravity cant be shielded, the external gravitational force acting on a centre of mass inertial system can provokes in it an approximate almost same acceleration in all its component bodies, making possible to consider the interior of an external accelerated entity as an inertial frame with its centre of mass at rest. This is the case for the GPS ECI, where its very complex trajectory in the Solar System doesnt affect at all its internal behaviour as an inertial system. Similar remark for the Solar System as part of the Galaxy. > > 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. > I dont understand your intention making that comment. What I see is mechanic and electromagnetic laws holding together, having greater velocities the less massive entities, in total agreement with 1905R. > 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. > Until today, the mysterious corpuscle-wave dual character of light continues being an open problem. What relation do you establish with the hierarchical inertial view that you are commenting? By the way, Newtons light corpuscle seems easier to manage in the HIS view than the light wave. > Sue... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force > > Emergent gravityhttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.... > > Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspectivehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062 > > The Origin of Gravity > Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 > > Sue... > Thanks a lot for your references. Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them properly). I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in this thread. I would like to know your opinion about the more hot topics, as rest mass measuring potential energy and being also equal to inertial mass, this last equality without any comment at all until now. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 3 Jun 2010 11:37 On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > 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). No, it doesn't. You should start collaborating with the other idiot (Lebau) who claims the same thing.
From: valls on 3 Jun 2010 12:45 On 3 jun, 10:37, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > 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). > > No, it doesn't. You should start collaborating with the other idiot > (Lebau) who claims the same thing. Hello Dono. Read the title of paragraph 3 in the 30Jun1905 paper (page 5): [parr.3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former] The title is very clear: FROM a Stationary System TO a Moving System. Do you think that Stationary System and Moving System are the same concept in 1905 Relativity? If you think so, then show us how can you apply a transformation of coordinates and time FROM the clock at the equator TO the clock at the pole, in the real example 1905 Einstein put at the end of paragraph 4 in the same 30Jun1905 paper, obtaining then that the clock at the pole runs slower than the clock at the equator (in total contradiction with the today GPS huge experimental evidence, putting out of any doubt the unidirectional character of the transformation, and showing which is the unique right direction (the one specified by 1905 Einstein, FROM the pole TO the equator). By the way, we are considering here the same GPS ECI inertial system that you pretend to use describing the Suns trajectory with respect to it. With all respect, you dont finish yet the task? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 3 Jun 2010 14:52 On Jun 3, 9:45 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 3 jun, 10:37, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > 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). > > > No, it doesn't. You should start collaborating with the other idiot > > (Lebau) who claims the same thing. > > Hello Dono. > Read the title of paragraph 3 in the 30Jun1905 paper (page 5): > [parr.3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a > Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > Relatively to the Former] > > The title is very clear: FROM a Stationary System TO a Moving System. > Do you think that Stationary System and Moving System are the same > concept in 1905 Relativity? If you think so, then show us how can you > apply a transformation of coordinates and time FROM the clock at the > equator TO the clock at the pole, in the real example 1905 Einstein > put at the end of paragraph 4 in the same 30Jun1905 paper, obtaining > then that the clock at the pole runs slower than the clock at the > equator (in total contradiction with the today GPS huge experimental > evidence, putting out of any doubt the unidirectional character of the > transformation, and showing which is the unique right direction (the > one specified by 1905 Einstein, FROM the pole TO the equator). > By the way, we are considering here the same GPS ECI inertial system > that you pretend to use describing the Suns trajectory with respect > to it. With all respect, you dont finish yet the task? > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) You will NEVER understand the 1905 paper, let alone SR. You should hook up with the Lebau kook. You two form a perfect pair.
From: Sue... on 3 Jun 2010 15:02
On Jun 3, 8:41 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: [...] > > Thanks a lot for your references. > Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived > HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them > properly). > I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in > this thread. No... It would be impossible to follow a discussion where you invoke gravitational shielding as part of your theory, but also claim it is a problem with other theories. > I would like to know your opinion about the more hot > topics, as rest mass measuring potential energy and being also equal > to inertial mass, this last equality without any comment at all until > now. Since nothing is ever at rest, that in not very "hot topic". There IS however a secret I can share if you promise not to tell a soul. Only a few people know that Einstein was so successful with his 1905 paper that he retired from physics and took up professional violin in 1906. Many of the performances of the romantic era are actually Einstein playing in disguise and the later physics papers credited to him were actually written by violinists who for one reason or another could not attend a concert and had no other way to pay for his "pinch hitting" :-)) Sue... > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |