According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 7 Jun 2010 10:18 On Jun 7, 4:54 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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. Imbecile, The correct answer was produced by taking into consideration the gravitational effects, i.e. by using GR, not SR. Do you even know what the correct answer is? Is there any difference in the ticking rate of a clock situated at the pole vs. one situated at the Equator? > 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.> "Engineers" smile at your imbecility. > > 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). > Good, so I managed to get you to learn something, old fart.
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 11:44 On 4 jun, 20:25, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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? > Newtons shows us that the Moon is continuously falling in the Earth, as the Earth is falling in a similar way in the Sun. I really dont understand your intention making me that question. The same Nature laws apply in all inertial frames, and the mass of each body influences its relation with the other bodies. > > > > > > 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 remain without understand the intention of your comments. I have no idea at all why are you introducing here chromosomes and our physical size, or talking about the thinking of not live things. > > 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. > I am not receiving your ideas. My capacity to use English to communicate is by sure more reduced than yours. I am limited to a more simple, direct and explicit use of the language that is not my native one. Any centre of mass (CM) inertial system is always limited to the body set used when determining its CM. You can use the ECI only with the Earth, small bodies in its surface and near artificial satellites. You can use the Solar System (SS) only for the bodies that compose it. All galaxies, even the one the SS belongs, must be considered not existing. This limitation is derived from Newtons laws. Tell me if you dont understand that, needing more explanation about it. As it is only Newtonian mechanics before 1905 Einstein, I am assuming you understand it. > 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. > The movement you are referring is not supported by Newtons laws, the ones holding good in the definition of what 1905 Einstein denote stationary system. > 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. > Newtons laws, including gravity and inertia, precede 1905 Einstein. I dont understand why you refer now to 1905 papers. > Don't read any of Einstein's other notions > until you have whipped the 1905 paper to > death at least 100 times over. > You must know all 1905 Relativity future in order to be able to interpret it correctly in its historic context. As an example, today rest mass measures rest energy, a new kind of energy (intrinsic to the body) with no relation at all with its kinetic or potential energies. If you use that today concept when interpreting the 27Sep1905 text (the one were the mass-energy relationship was first discovered), you are falling in a very serious mistake. Interpreting in the correct way that paper (respecting its historical context) you find that rest mass measures potential energy (as a simple particular case of the more general conclusion about mass measuring energy). I explore the consequences, deriving then simple explanations for effects only explained about 10 years later using General Relativity. No, I have not the intention at all to declare death old papers. They can live yet a lot supported in their own merits. Science development must not follow necessarily a simple historical sequence (that can include also historical mistakes). Science History can be used as a useful Science resource. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument > > Sue... > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 7 Jun 2010 11:46 On Jun 7, 1:54 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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) Indeed, for a perfectly homogeneous and spherical planet his prediction is probably accurate. And if you want to know how it was "at once apparent" for Einstein that a clock with a polygonal trajectory will be equally slow as one with a straight trajectory, I can try to elaborate on his explanation. Cheers, Harald
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 12:07 On 4 jun, 15:23, "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). > > ============ > > > 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. > I dont adore any text, and much less its author. I consider any text (new or old) by its own merits taking into account only its content. You can believe me or not, is your right, but I take the Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) concept from the 1905 Einsteins text. Moreover, the HIS is my historical interpretation of what 1905 Einstein denotes as stationary system. The real rotating Earth example (at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 paper) is my prototype, a centre of mass (CM) inertial system having the moving system (clock at the equator) as part of the stationary system. Here is already the essential concept of hierarchy, the stationary system is always the higher hierarchy one, the moving system is always the lower hierarchy one. What can be moving? Only a part with respect to its whole. What can be at rest? Only the whole with respect to all its parts. We must be blind to not see the hierarchy in our Universe, the Moon moving wrt the Earth-Moon (EM) system, the EM moving wrt the Solar System (SS), the SS moving wrt the Galaxy System, etc. And why stationary? Because the highest hierarchy HIS that you use have nothing more in its exterior to be moving with respect to it. Once 1905 Einstein reject the absolute system (and all the other derived from it moving with all possible uniform velocities), the bodies themselves remain the unique ones to determine inertial systems, and they exist already in the Newtonian view before 1905 Einstein, the centre of mass (CM) inertial systems corresponding to any body set. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartan_connection > > Sue... > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 7 Jun 2010 12:16
"harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:d1a08a96-7457-49dc-8cae-d2828370d790(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jun 7, 1:54 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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 > Einstein�s 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, doesn�t 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) Indeed, for a perfectly homogeneous and spherical planet his prediction is probably accurate. And if you want to know how it was "at once apparent" for Einstein that a clock with a polygonal trajectory will be equally slow as one with a straight trajectory, I can try to elaborate on his explanation. ================================================= Go on then, let's all have a laugh. Let's see you probably try. |