According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 08:44 <valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:682e8b01-43a5-45ac-83df-49a6dd03419e(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On 9 jun, 04:32, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> 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: >> [..] >> >> > 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. >> > Sure, 1905 Einstein defines �stationary system� as one in which the > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. That is every inertial system > But we must be on alert > about which the consequences are after his rejection of the Newtonian > absolute system. There is no such thing as a Newtonian absolute system >> > 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 Newton�s 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. >> > In Newtonian mechanics there exists a difference between the reference > system you are using and the body whose movement you are describing > with that reference. If the reference system is the absolute one, There is no absolute system in Newtonian physics .. everything is relative (related by Galilean transforms) [snip rest of nonsense that follows]
From: Dono. on 10 Jun 2010 09:57 On Jun 10, 4:09 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > , I referred you already where the > material is. What "material", old fart? You can't derive the effect without using the Kerr (or, at least, Schwarzschild) metric, two things that you know NOTHING about. > all your references to concepts developed after 1905 are totally out > of context, the essential point is to use only 1905 Relativity. Old fart, You can't derive the GR effects using SR effects. Besides, you don't know SR EITHER.
From: harald on 10 Jun 2010 12:02 On Jun 10, 3:22 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 9, 8:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:61dcec3a-58e2-4fc9-9e4e-419e0ba246a0(a)e30g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > [...] > > > >> > > > > >> > 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. > > > >> > > > ============ > > > >> > > > > As I thought .. you posted without having any idea what you were > > >> > > > > saying.. > > >> > > > > Typical for Sue. > > > >> > > > Learn some science, you obnoious fool. :-) > > > >> > > > Hamlet is Hamlet whether it comes from > > >> > > > Shakespeare's pen or a monkey with a typewriter. > > > >> > > > Sue... > > > >> > > I still suspect that you are not a monkey but a computer program: > > > >http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/canon/eliza.htm > > > ;-) > > > >> > Why not give it eliza a try and see if it can > > >> > detect your non-responsive posts? > > > >> > Sue... > > > > ========= > > > >> Hmm we already have you for free! :-)) > > > > Sometimes you get what you pay for. > > > Exactly .. you 'contribute' for zero cost and return zero value. > > Put up or shut up. > Harald proposed a bogus clock. > Either defend it, refute it or > concede and go play elsewhere. > > Sue... If I proposed a bogus clock then the watch on your arm must be a bogus watch, as it doesn't jump from one time to another when you move your arm. Or don't you wear a watch? Harald
From: Sue... on 10 Jun 2010 12:21 On Jun 10, 12:02 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:22 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 9, 8:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:61dcec3a-58e2-4fc9-9e4e-419e0ba246a0(a)e30g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Jun 9, 2:52 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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. > > > > >> > > > ============ > > > > >> > > > > As I thought .. you posted without having any idea what you were > > > >> > > > > saying.. > > > >> > > > > Typical for Sue. > > > > >> > > > Learn some science, you obnoious fool. :-) > > > > >> > > > Hamlet is Hamlet whether it comes from > > > >> > > > Shakespeare's pen or a monkey with a typewriter. > > > > >> > > > Sue... > > > > >> > > I still suspect that you are not a monkey but a computer program: > > > > >http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/canon/eliza.htm > > > > ;-) > > > > >> > Why not give it eliza a try and see if it can > > > >> > detect your non-responsive posts? > > > > >> > Sue... > > > > > ========= > > > > >> Hmm we already have you for free! :-)) > > > > > Sometimes you get what you pay for. > > > > Exactly .. you 'contribute' for zero cost and return zero value. > > > Put up or shut up. > > Harald proposed a bogus clock. > > Either defend it, refute it or > > concede and go play elsewhere. > > > Sue... > ========== > If I proposed a bogus clock then the watch on your arm must be a bogus > watch, as it doesn't jump from one time to another when you move your > arm. Yes my watch certainty does move that way. I just can't squint enough to see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > Or don't you wear a watch? So kind of you to inquire. Of late I don't but Rolex is my favourite. Remember, I am a closet environmentalist so skip the gift wrapping please. Sue... > > Harald
From: valls on 10 Jun 2010 12:49
On 10 jun, 08:57, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 10, 4:09 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > , I referred you already where the > > material is. > > What "material", old fart? (Excuse me, surely I use the word material in a wrong way) You can find the derivation in the following link belonging to this thread: http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/690c408fc9478c77?hl=es& See also the rest of my talking with PD. More probably, your objections will be similar to the PD ones. > You can't derive the effect without using the Kerr (or, at least, > Schwarzschild) metric, two things that you know NOTHING about. > You dont understand yet that the derivation uses only 1905 Relativity? Read first the derivation and argument later that what you read cant exist. > > all your references to concepts developed after 1905 are totally out > > of context, the essential point is to use only 1905 Relativity. > > Old fart, > > You can't derive the GR effects using SR effects. Besides, you don't > know SR EITHER. I am not using SR or GR at all. I am using only 1905 Relativity. I dont care if you think it is impossible or not. I am offering you a concrete result obtained by me many years ago. Try to prove it wrong if you want and can. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |