According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 13:16 On Jun 7, 11:44 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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 system 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. Thank you. So your universe with only one solar system would not even last a human lifetime. > 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. The point is to demonstrate that Einstein embraces a plausible mechanism for inertia. Newton's mechanism is implausible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument But that mechanism does not appear in the 1905 paper. A preferred frame appears so it is not relativistic. The 1905 paper is antithetical to the very notion you are trying to develop. ....a hierarchy of mass that describes gravity and inertia? (one and the same actually) How far will you drive on square wheels before you try a round wheel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory Sue... > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 14:44 On 7 jun, 10:46, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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. > 1905 Einstein is simply assuming that the result obtained by him for a moving system with a uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary system (see the title of paragraph 3 in his 30Jun1905 paper), can be applied to an entity moving with ANY instantaneous velocity v using the procedures of integral and differential calculus (and without any previous mention to it!). See how the polygonal line is converted later in a continuous curved one. All this is more than sufficient to declare his work not well founded. Why then 1905 Einsteins work survived? By the unique and very surprising fact that his predictions resulted supported by a huge experimental evidence! In today GPS system, the correction of a satellite clock owed to the not exact circularity of its orbit (and the corresponding not exact uniform speed) is done following 1905 Einstein! > Cheers, > Harald RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 14:52 On Jun 7, 11:44 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 7 jun, 10:46, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > 1905 Einstein is simply assuming that the result obtained by him for a > moving system with a uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary > system (see the title of paragraph 3 in his 30Jun1905 paper), can be > applied to an entity moving with ANY instantaneous velocity v using > the procedures of integral and differential calculus (and without any > previous mention to it!). See how the polygonal line is converted > later in a continuous curved one. All this is more than sufficient to > declare his work not well founded. Why then 1905 Einsteins work > survived? By the unique and very surprising fact that his predictions > resulted supported by a huge experimental evidence! In today GPS > system, the correction of a satellite clock owed to the not exact > circularity of its orbit (and the corresponding not exact uniform > speed) is done following 1905 Einstein! > > > Cheers, > > Harald > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How can a point of energy be at rest if it is moving right behind light with light only inching ahead? What about when flowing energy leaves light behind by traveling ahead at high speed of the light in the same direction? This can create a motion black hole. MItch Raemsch
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 16:17 On 7 jun, 09:18, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. Put a little more attention to what you read. I mentioned you already that GR is used to describe clock behaviour in a gravitational field. I am referring later to the 1905 paper, an epoch where neither SR exists yet (the word Special was used by first time by 1916 Einstein). 1905 Relativity predicts very well the speed effect on a moving clock. > 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? > Yes Dono, I know very well that all clocks on the geoid are synchronized, included the ones at the equator or poles. Even then 1905 Einsteins prediction, what refers only to the speed effect (not to the gravitational effect), is totally correct. Dont get it yet? > > 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. > I see that you dont understand yet that the symmetry and reciprocity present in today Special Relativity is NOT present in 1905 Relativity. By the way, SR cant be used at all with gravitation, the rotating Earth with clocks at the equator and pole present in 1905 Relativity cant be explained then with SR. I know that you even not understand yet that SR is NOT 1905 Relativity. Using the Solar System (SS) you can describe the movement of the ECI centre of mass, but using the ECI you cant describe the movement of the Solar System centre of mass (or the trajectory of any body of the SS different from the Earth). Dont get it yet? Is not so difficult. > > > 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. You seem remaining yet ignorant about all related with 1905 Relativity. When I say that GR cant be used to interpret 1905 Relativity, that doesnt imply that I dont know GR. By the way, I derived already effects today only explained using GR by using only 1905 Relativity, among them clock behaviour in a gravitational field. If you want to know the derivation in all detail, see my talking with PD in this same thread. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 17:07
On Jun 7, 2:44 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 7 jun, 10:46, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > 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. > > 1905 Einstein is simply assuming that the result obtained by him for a > moving system with a uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary > system (see the title of paragraph 3 in his 30Jun1905 paper), can be > applied to an entity moving with ANY instantaneous velocity v using > the procedures of integral and differential calculus (and without any > previous mention to it!). See how the polygonal line is converted > later in a continuous curved one. All this is more than sufficient to > declare his work not well founded. ============= > Why then 1905 Einsteins work > survived? Because it is quite profitable to collect tuition for tensor calculus while hiring teachers of Pythagoras. :-( > By the unique and very surprising fact that his predictions > resulted supported by a huge experimental evidence! In today GPS > system, the correction of a satellite clock owed to the not exact > circularity of its orbit (and the corresponding not exact uniform > speed) is done following 1905 Einstein! It seems not. Living reviews in Relativity: 0 hits for query "on the electrodynamics" http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/refs.html Sue... > > > Cheers, > > Harald > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |