According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 8 Jun 2010 17:17 On 8 jun, 11:29, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 jun, 16:48, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > As you know well, I had being curious for many years (and continue > > being) to all related with 1905 Einstein scientific work, always > > assuming profound non-evident hidden reasons in his thought. But that > > doesnt mean that I accepted as correct all what he writes. In the > > case we are addressing (the polygonal line converted later in a > > continuous curved one), I had being unable to find a satisfactory to > > me explanation about its correctness, being that the cause of my > > recent comment about it. > > From what you write here below, apparently you don't have a logical > explanation yourself; and still you claim that it was faulty. Then > what exactly was faulty do you think, and why? I had to think a few > minutes about it before concluding that it is indeed obviously > correct! > Read at the beginning of paragraph 2 in the 30Jun1905 paper: 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. Read the title of paragraph 3 in the same paper: 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 As you see, Postulate 1 and paragraph 3 title have in common the concept uniform motion, that we are assuming has the same meaning than in Newtons first law, the traditional movement in a straight line with constant velocity. But at the end of paragraph 4 Einstein introduces a moving system that is NOT moving with uniform motion with respect to the stationary system. It is only moving instantaneously with uniform motion! This is the point that I cant accept without a previous explanation. Imagine Newtons first law with uniform motion with that meaning! ALL movement is then an inertial one! No need at all to conceive General Relativity! ALL systems are already inertial ones! I am not rejecting 1905 Relativity as a faulty theory for that cause, because it is supported experimentally with that type of instantaneous uniform motion for the moving system, as the movement of GPS satellites put out of any doubt. I accepted then 1905 Relativity with that extension for the concept of moving system, that can be moving in ANY form compatible with the Nature laws that hold good in ANY stationary system. > > > > > > > What do you think was immediately clear to Einstein, but faulty > > > thinking? And if it was faulty, why was his conclusion correct? > > > The intuition in science creation is a very difficult topic to talk > > about. Whatever the case about the correctness of the 1905 Einsteins > > derivation we are addressing and my inability to understand it (until > > now), I include it already in my interpretation of the 1905 text. As > > the experimental evidence supports it, I have no other alternative. > > > 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. > > > When mentioning 1905 Einstein in a time relativity correction, it is > > clear that I am referring only to the part owed to speed. > > OK, you simply overlooked that the non-circular orbit of today's GPS > satellite doesn't only change its speed. ;-) > I know that the gravitational potential effect is taken into account when correcting a non-circular orbit of today GPS. I am only saying that the speed effect part is already correctly predicted by a 1905 Relativity with an instantaneous uniform moving system. > > The effect > > of gravitation on clocks is first discovered by 1916 Einstein, having > > then no sense at all to talk about a gravitational potential > > correction in 1905. That 1905 Einstein doesnt include it is the > > unique valid alternative. > > In a similar way, when I say that the 1905 Einsteins prediction > > (about the clock at the equator running slower that the one at the > > pole) is confirmed experimentally, I am referring only to the speed > > effect, not taking into account the gravitational potential one. > > By the way, I derived already (since many years ago) the gravitational > > potential effect using only 1905 Relativity (that is, respecting the > > 1905 knowledge context). > > That is well known; Einstein started almost immediately with the > development of the influence of gravitational potential, as already > discussed in his 1907 paper. > I am not referring to the 1907 paper, but to my own derivation from the 27Sep1905 paper, that starts recognizing that Einsteins conclusion The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content has in the 1905 context the particular meaning The (rest) mass of a body is a measure of its (potential) energy-content. > > You can find it (in all detail) in my past > > talking with PD in this same thread. > > The new for you is that I also derive the shift of Mercurys > > perihelion using only 1905 Relativity, using some result that is > > hidden in the title of this thread (it is also already explicit in my > > talking with Sue in this same thread). Anyway, I will put it now: > > > Rest mass and inertial mass is one and the same thing. > > That depends on definition. For example, the inertial mass of a high > energy electron is in common language very different from its mass at > rest. > I delay the address of this very interesting point to other occasion. > Harald RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 9 Jun 2010 05:32 On Jun 8, 11:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 8 jun, 11:29, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:> On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: [..] > > > > > > > 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! > > > > As you know well, I had being curious for many years (and continue > > > being) to all related with 1905 Einstein scientific work, always > > > assuming profound non-evident hidden reasons in his thought. But that > > > doesnt mean that I accepted as correct all what he writes. In the > > > case we are addressing (the polygonal line converted later in a > > > continuous curved one), I had being unable to find a satisfactory to > > > me explanation about its correctness, being that the cause of my > > > recent comment about it. > > > From what you write here below, apparently you don't have a logical > > explanation yourself; and still you claim that it was faulty. Then > > what exactly was faulty do you think, and why? I had to think a few > > minutes about it before concluding that it is indeed obviously > > correct! > > Read at the beginning of paragraph 2 in the 30Jun1905 paper: > 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change > are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the > one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory > motion. Indeed, those changes of state stem from classical (Newtonian) theory, and he referred to Newtonian coordinate systems. That he had such a physical consideration of systems along with the mathematical one is essential for understanding his paper, and the part about moving clocks in particular. > Read the title of paragraph 3 in the same paper: > 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 > As you see, Postulate 1 and paragraph 3 title have in common the > concept uniform motion, that we are assuming has the same meaning > than in Newtons first law, the traditional movement in a straight > line with constant velocity. Correct. > But at the end of paragraph 4 Einstein introduces a moving system that > is NOT moving with uniform motion with respect to the stationary > system. It is only moving instantaneously with uniform motion! Do you have a problem with that? Don't you understand that it's the same in Newtonian mechanics? Probably it's best to first discuss the predictions from the older, classical theory for this case; and then you will probably immediately understand the prediction with the new one. > This is the point that I cant accept without a previous explanation. > Imagine Newtons first law with uniform motion with that meaning! > ALL movement is then an inertial one! No need at all to conceive > General Relativity! ALL systems are already inertial ones! > I am not rejecting 1905 Relativity as a faulty theory for that cause, > because it is supported experimentally with that type of instantaneous > uniform motion for the moving system, as the movement of GPS > satellites put out of any doubt. I accepted then 1905 Relativity with > that extension for the concept of moving system, that can be moving in > ANY form compatible with the Nature laws that hold good in ANY > stationary system. That's completely mistaken, as I'll show you immediately. First, take Newton's theory. What does it say about a clock in inertial motion? You surely know that that theory predicts that uniform motion does not at all affect the rate of a clock as determined in a "stationary" system; and as also Einstein emphasized, the word "stationary" commonly doesn't mean anything special, it's just a Newtonian system that we pick. Now take a clock that is moving uniformly in another direction, starting with a physical consideration. Surely you understand that it has qualitatively the *same* state of motion; the direction of motion cannot make a difference for the prediction. Thus logically, the same can be said for a clock that is moving along a polygonal trajectory, since an infinitely quick change of direction does not affect the indication of a good clock. Mathematically this physical understanding can be verified by performing Galilean transformations at the turning points: the time t is of course the same when we shift our coordinates, while the time t' that we locally read cannot be affected by our change of ruler position (please check if you agree). If we next assume that also acceleration has no effect on clock rate, then we can extrapolate (by simple integration) this result to a circular trajectory. As a matter of fact, this is what always *was* assumed by everyone, based on Newtonian mechanics. Do you really claim that that is "wrong"? Now take the new theory. This one has the following "physical meaning": "The time marked by [a uniformly moving] clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by 1 - sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} seconds per second." Following the same *physical* logic as in the old theory, the direction of motion cannot affect the physics; thus "It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line". This can be verified mathematically (which takes a little longer than the immediate physical insight based on state of motion) by performing Lorentz transformations at the turning points. Then we verify that when switching to another location, the time t remains of course the same. Also the corresponding t' at that point (a physical event) cannot be affected by our change of ruler position, as that would contradict with what is observed with the first ruler position. Next, "*If* we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line", Einstein comes to his prediction about a clock moving in a circular trajectory. Following that, he makes a prediction in which he lets go of his overly simple example of Newtonian systems that are determined by means of "stationary" clocks and rods: instead he refers to the ECI coordinate system which is in nearly uniform motion but in which almost no reference matter is perfectly in rest. As PD also pointed out, this was already well understood in Newtonian mechanics and Einstein based himself on the use of Newtonian reference systems. > > > > What do you think was immediately clear to Einstein, but faulty > > > > thinking? And if it was faulty, why was his conclusion correct? > > > > The intuition in science creation is a very difficult topic to talk > > > about. Whatever the case about the correctness of the 1905 Einsteins > > > derivation we are addressing and my inability to understand it (until > > > now), I include it already in my interpretation of the 1905 text. As > > > the experimental evidence supports it, I have no other alternative. [..] > > > By the way, I derived already (since many years ago) the gravitational > > > potential effect using only 1905 Relativity (that is, respecting the > > > 1905 knowledge context). > > > That is well known; Einstein started almost immediately with the > > development of the influence of gravitational potential, as already > > discussed in his 1907 paper. > > I am not referring to the 1907 paper, but to my own derivation from > the 27Sep1905 paper, that starts recognizing that Einsteins > conclusion The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content has > in the 1905 context the particular meaning The (rest) mass of a body > is a measure of its (potential) energy-content. > > > You can find it (in all detail) in my past > > > talking with PD in this same thread. Nice try; note that you assume that effects on dimensions will not affect your prediction, which you cannot know. > > > The new for you is that I also derive the shift of Mercurys > > > perihelion using only 1905 Relativity, using some result that is > > > hidden in the title of this thread (it is also already explicit in my > > > talking with Sue in this same thread). Anyway, I will put it now: > > > > Rest mass and inertial mass is one and the same thing. > > > That depends on definition. For example, the inertial mass of a high > > energy electron is in common language very different from its mass at > > rest. > > I delay the address of this very interesting point to other occasion. Regards, Harald
From: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 05:56 On Jun 9, 5:32 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [...] > Surely you understand that it has qualitatively the *same* state of > motion; the direction of motion cannot make a difference for the > prediction. > Thus logically, the same can be said for a clock that is moving along > a polygonal trajectory, since an infinitely quick change of direction > does not affect the indication of a good clock. This is not true because Emmy Noether said (somewhat later than 1905) that a meter stick taped to a gun barrel is a good clock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications Sue...
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 06:44 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:813f2f6b-6485-45f3-b306-5d4e90a743b8(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 5:32 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > [...] >> Surely you understand that it has qualitatively the *same* state of >> motion; the direction of motion cannot make a difference for the >> prediction. >> Thus logically, the same can be said for a clock that is moving along >> a polygonal trajectory, since an infinitely quick change of direction >> does not affect the indication of a good clock. > > This is not true because Emmy Noether said (somewhat later > than 1905) that a meter stick taped to a gun barrel is a good clock. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications So what? How is that related to what he said?
From: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 06:49
On Jun 9, 6:44 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:813f2f6b-6485-45f3-b306-5d4e90a743b8(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 9, 5:32 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > [...] > >> Surely you understand that it has qualitatively the *same* state of > >> motion; the direction of motion cannot make a difference for the > >> prediction. > >> Thus logically, the same can be said for a clock that is moving along > >> a polygonal trajectory, since an infinitely quick change of direction > >> does not affect the indication of a good clock. > > > This is not true because Emmy Noether said (somewhat later > > than 1905) that a meter stick taped to a gun barrel is a good clock. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > -------------- > So what? How is that related to what he said? You tell me. I have better things to do than read beyond false statements. Sue... |