According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 4 Jun 2010 16:23 On Jun 4, 3:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 3 jun, 17:31, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. > > > I am constantly reminded of this by others like > > yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of > > advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or > > or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation > > and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. > > > It is one of the few occasions when life deals > > fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise > > themselves more than anyone else. :-) > > > Sue... > > I have no idea at all what dishonest debating tactics are you > talking about. By the way, you forgot to point in what place (before > you introducing it), you say I mention gravitational shielding for > something (I dont remember that, but if true, I apologize you in > advance for saying the contrary). ============ > As the topic in this thread refers only to 1905 Relativity, I always > make clear and direct references to the relevant 1905 text, I should add... Your notions about a hierarchy, actually have some merit. But you are kidding no one but yourself if you think the necessary tools are some way hidden in the divine scriptures of 1905. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartan_connection Sue... > with no > relation at all with concepts used or developed in its future (like > the advanced electromagnetism and tensor calculus that you think I am > ignorant, in a senseless comment totally out of context). > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 4 Jun 2010 17:40 On 4 jun, 14:56, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 17:31, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. > > > > I am constantly reminded of this by others like > > > yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of > > > advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or > > > or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation > > > and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. > > > > It is one of the few occasions when life deals > > > fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise > > > themselves more than anyone else. :-) > > > > Sue... > > > I have no idea at all what dishonest debating tactics are you > > talking about. By the way, you forgot to point in what place (before > > you introducing it), you say I mention gravitational shielding for > > something (I dont remember that, but if true, I apologize you in > > advance for saying the contrary). > > Simply scroll back where you suggest gravitational > behaviour is different inside and outside objects. > > That is "shielding" whether you use the term > or not. The example of loose bits in a camera > box is offered to show your premise is false. > > Sue... > This is only a lack of sufficient explanation from my part (I apologize you for that). I am not referring to any shielding at all (gravitational or any other kind). Let us consider the Solar System (SS) as part of the Galaxy (G). The interior of the SS is the more perfect inertial system known by men. When computing its centre of mass (CM), only the bodies belonging to its associated body set are taking into account (as in ANY other CM inertial system). The exterior is considered then empty, as if the SS were the all Universe. The result is then a CM at rest, applying the Theorem (derived from Newtons laws) declaring the state of movement of a CM as totally independent on the interacting component bodies (the SS modelled as a single material point in its CM have nothing to move with respect to it, read the title of this thread). But you can argue that uniqueness totally false, because in our real Universe the SS is not alone at all. You are right, but if we shut all the windows (to not see the exterior, remember the interior room in Galileos ship moving with any uniform velocity where all occur as if the ship were at rest, including gravity, the developing by first time of the inertial system concept and the Principle of Relativity), the interior of the SS can be considered at rest, ignoring totally the rest of the Universe. But at the same time, considering the exterior of the SS, it is only a component body of the Galaxy among many, interacting with all the others and moving in an accelerated way. All of this is Newtonian mechanics, I am not violating the 1905 context. Let us talk now about gravitation. We have different gravities in the interior and the exterior of the SS? Not at all, Newtonian gravitation is a universal one, without any kind of shielding involved. The Galaxy (and the rest of the Universe) is applying a gravitational force in ALL de component bodies of the SS. But what occurs? All exterior bodies are very distant from the SS, provoking in all interior bodies an approximate almost same acceleration in all of them. All the SS can be considered a single point in the Galaxy (as the Earth-Moon system is considered a single point in the SS). Thanks to that condition, the acceleration if not noted at all. As human beings living in Earth we also dont noted even the near Moon gravitational force, what doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, as the sea tides put in evidence. I hope my explanation is now sufficient good to put out your misunderstanding about me using a gravity shield. Fortunately a Faraday cage doesnt belong to the advanced electromagnetism that you think I dont know. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 4 Jun 2010 18:03 On Jun 3, 1:02 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > Calculate then how slow is moving the clock at the pole with respect > to the one at the equator (using what you believe is 1905 Relativity). Listen, imbecile We have known for about 95 years that all clocks on the geoid tick at the same exact rate. > I will add it to your personal list of (totally impossible) tasks. > Not taking into account the experimental evidence, almost sure will > always maintain you in the wrong road. How about if you read the NIST website on the subject, old fart?
From: Sue... on 4 Jun 2010 21:25 On Jun 4, 5:40 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 4 jun, 14:56, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 3:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 17:31, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. > > > > > I am constantly reminded of this by others like > > > > yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of > > > > advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or > > > > or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation > > > > and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. > > > > > It is one of the few occasions when life deals > > > > fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise > > > > themselves more than anyone else. :-) > > > > > Sue... > > > > I have no idea at all what dishonest debating tactics are you > > > talking about. By the way, you forgot to point in what place (before > > > you introducing it), you say I mention gravitational shielding for > > > something (I dont remember that, but if true, I apologize you in > > > advance for saying the contrary). > > > Simply scroll back where you suggest gravitational > > behaviour is different inside and outside objects. > > > That is "shielding" whether you use the term > > or not. The example of loose bits in a camera > > box is offered to show your premise is false. > > > Sue... > > This is only a lack of sufficient explanation from my part (I > apologize you for that). I am not referring to any shielding at all > (gravitational or any other kind). Let us consider the Solar System > (SS) as part of the Galaxy (G). The interior of the SS is the more > perfect inertial system known by men. When computing its centre of > mass (CM), only the bodies belonging to its associated body set are > taking into account (as in ANY other CM inertial system). The exterior > is considered then empty, as if the SS were the all Universe. The > result is then a CM at rest, applying the Theorem (derived from > Newtons laws) declaring the state of movement of a CM as totally > independent on the interacting component bodies (the SS modelled as a > single material point in its CM have nothing to move with respect to > it, read the title of this thread). Wouldn't the smaller bodies of our solar systme simply fall into the sun? > But you can argue that uniqueness > totally false, because in our real Universe the SS is not alone at > all. You are right, but if we shut all the windows (to not see the > exterior, remember the interior room in Galileos ship moving with any > uniform velocity where all occur as if the ship were at rest, > including gravity, the developing by first time of the inertial system > concept and the Principle of Relativity), the interior of the SS can > be considered at rest, ignoring totally the rest of the Universe. > But at the same time, considering the exterior of the SS, it is only a > component body of the Galaxy among many, interacting with all the > others and moving in an accelerated way. All of this is Newtonian > mechanics, I am not violating the 1905 context. > Let us talk now about gravitation. We have different gravities in the > interior and the exterior of the SS? Not at all, Newtonian gravitation > is a universal one, without any kind of shielding involved. The Galaxy > (and the rest of the Universe) is applying a gravitational force in > ALL de component bodies of the SS. But what occurs? All exterior > bodies are very distant from the SS, provoking in all interior bodies > an approximate almost same acceleration in all of them. All the SS can > be considered a single point in the Galaxy (as the Earth-Moon system > is considered a single point in the SS). Thanks to that condition, the > acceleration if not noted at all. As human beings living in Earth we > also dont noted even the near Moon gravitational force, what doesnt > mean that it doesnt exist, as the sea tides put in evidence. That is nothing to do with our chromosomes but rather our physical size. The oceans are aware of the moon's gravity and they don't even think. > I hope my explanation is now sufficient good to put out your > misunderstanding about me using a gravity shield. Fortunately a > Faraday cage doesnt belong to the advanced electromagnetism that you > think I dont know. No... It is no improvemnent at all. That which you could not *shield* in your earlier though-exjperiment, you have declared to vanish in your most recent attempt. Vanishing galaxies are even scarcer than gravity shields, at least where I shop for lawn and garden supplies. Perhaps the stores in your neighbourhood keep a wider inventory. Just put the stars back where they belong and note that your arms are drawn away from your body when you see the stars spinning overhead. I say it is 1 hour to Rome and you say it is 1 km to Rome. We are both correct because we are in a Ferrari motoring toward Rome. If that fact helps you understand gravity and inertia then please continue whipping on Einstein's 1905 paper for a few more years. Don't read any of Einstein's other notions until you have whipped the 1905 paper to death at least 100 times over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument Sue... > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 07:54
On 4 jun, 17:03, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 3, 1:02 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > Calculate then how slow is moving the clock at the pole with respect > > to the one at the equator (using what you believe is 1905 Relativity). > > Listen, imbecile > > We have known for about 95 years that all clocks on the geoid tick at > the same exact rate. > Yes, 2010-95=1915. We know by first time about clocks being affected by gravity using General Relativity. But we are addressing a 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper wrote about 10 years before, even about 3 months before the discovery of the universal mass-energy relationship in his 27Sep1905 paper. Then, when interpreting a 1905 paper you must not take into account the effect of gravity in the clocks, only the effect of speed. For 1905 Einstein, the moving clock at the equator is running slower than the rest one at the pole (under otherwise identical conditions, the literal last words at the end of paragraph 4 in the 30Jun1905 paper), a prediction confirmed today by the huge experimental evidence of today GPS. That the clock at the pole is NOT running slower than the one at the equator (owed to the speed effect) is also confirmed by the same huge experimental evidence. GPS engineers only maintain silent with a funny smile to us if we remember them that Special Relativity requires also a pole clock running slower that the equator one. > > I will add it to your personal list of (totally impossible) tasks. > > Not taking into account the experimental evidence, almost sure will > > always maintain you in the wrong road. > > How about if you read the NIST website on the subject, old fart? Surely I will not find in it any information at all about how to correct interpret and old text respecting the historic context. The today knowledge about the clocks at the equator and at the pole running at the same rate owed to the combined effect of gravitation and speed, doesnt put false the 1905 knowledge about the clock at the equator running slower than the one at the pole owed to the effect of speed (ignoring the yet unknown gravitation effect). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |