According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 7 Jun 2010 17:48 On Jun 7, 8:44 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. In other words: instead of being curious what it was that Einstein immediately saw and assumed that everyone would understand, you simply assume that based on wrong thinking he found the right answer by luck! What do you think was immediately clear to Einstein, but faulty thinking? And if it was faulty, why was his conclusion correct? > 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! No, that is wrong: GPS corrections include gravitational potential which Einstein-1905 doesn't include. Harald
From: Androcles on 7 Jun 2010 18:02 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:f56dc81e-b4d6-411b-8e13-33e54f99449b(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... No, that is wrong: GPS corrections include gravitational potential which Einstein-1905 doesn't include. =========================================== No, that is wrong. GPS corrections are uploaded from ground stations and don't contain any "gravitational potential", you imbecile.
From: valls on 7 Jun 2010 18:51 On 7 jun, 12:16, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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 dont understand the intention of your comment. The universe with only the Solar System (SS) is the usual model today astronomers use to address any internal affair in it. Is in that model where all planets orbits are described (including the shift of Mercurys perihelion, so related with GR). For external affairs a higher hierarchy HIS is needed. I dont know which is the today state of knowledge relative to the movement of the SS in the Galaxy. I dont know if the Galaxy can be considered already an inertial system or not. It depends on the knowledge about the associated body set, if sufficiently well determined or not. > > 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. > What Einstein are you talking about, the 1905 or the 1916 one? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principlehttp://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. > I explain to you already that I take the HIS idea from the 1905 text (maybe in another post of this thread, I am talking at the same time with several persons, even with more than one place for the same person, excuse me if I confuse the things a little). Let us try to clear what preferred frame are you talking about, naming 1905R for that cause not relativistic. 1905 Einstein is precisely the one taking out the preferred frame of the Newtonian view. I realize then that 1905 Einstein stationary systems can be only de centre of mass (CM) inertial system determined by some body set. I denoted them Hierarchical Inertial Systems (HIS) after conceiving the whole and part relationship among them jointly with the approximate almost equal acceleration condition. We have then many different HIS in this view, I dont understand in what sense are you talking now about a preferred frame. If you refer to the unique character of the HIS once its primary body set is determined, this is a concept already present in Newtonian mechanics, without any relation with the absolute frame. We have a unique Solar System in our Universe, but that doesnt imply that the SS is a preferred system in our Universe. Every different part of the Universe can be modelled with a different HIS, each one with a different space and time. For me all this is sufficient to denote the HIS approach a relativistic theory, the 1905R one. > ...a hierarchy of mass that describes gravity > and inertia? (one and the same actually) > In the Newtonian view inertial mass and gravitational mass is the same unique and intrinsic mass. In GR they remain being the same mass. In today Physics, the intrinsic rest mass is considered the unique mass, being both inertial and gravitational. As you see, the today prevailing view about what it is mass is the same of the Newtonian view. And what about 1905 Relativity? See the title of this thread. In 1905R we have no more an isolated unique entity moving with any uniform velocity. Now the inertial movement is only associated with the rest! In 1905R only a part can move with respect to its whole, being the whole for all internal affairs in a permanent state of rest, and now the denotation of stationary system have for us a clear and an until today hidden meaning. Yes, the stationary system is now revealed as a real stationary one! > How far will you drive on square wheels before > you try a round wheel? > For me the square wheels are in GR, and the round wheels hidden until now in 1905R. Inertia now means only rest, the undetermined uniform velocity v characteristic of the old inertia concept is no more here, it was taken out jointly with the imaginary absolute frame by 1905 Einstein. An inertial system is now a stationary system. If now inertia is related only with rest, it sounds very normal to verify if now rest mass (that measures the energy a body has at rest, the 1905 Potential Energy) can be considered inertial mass, being the total mass the gravitational mass, taking into account that a massive body determines a gravitational field, being at rest or moving (if the strength of the field is maintained or increased by the movement can be derived later). Using the old hidden concepts, I had been already able to compute the shift of Mercury perihelion with a tiny greater precision than the obtained with GR. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory > > Sue... > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 19:50 <valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:c388c69e-947a-40ef-a82b-6bc675a157ea(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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 >> > 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. >> > 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 Einstein�s 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! Clearly .. as the work done up to and including 1905 Einstein does NOT explain GPS corrections. So it must be the work that followed it. 1905 Paper is a good starting point, and presents the essence of SR (although it is better presented using minkowski geometry etc, its still essentially the same notion), and it led to the development of GR.
From: harald on 8 Jun 2010 03:57
On Jun 8, 12:02 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:f56dc81e-b4d6-411b-8e13-33e54f99449b(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > No, that is wrong: GPS corrections include gravitational potential > which Einstein-1905 doesn't include. > > =========================================== > No, that is wrong. GPS corrections are uploaded from ground > stations and don't contain any "gravitational potential", you imbecile. It's imbecile to ignore what is discussed (here: clocks and not GPS itself). Harald |