According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 10 Jun 2010 13:43 On Jun 10, 2:37 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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. But we must be on alert > about which the consequences are after his rejection of the 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 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. > > 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, it > is at absolute rest; if the reference system is one of the moving with > a uniform velocity with respect to the absolute one, it is at an > apparent or relative rest. Whatever the case, the body described can > be moving in the reference system used with ANY velocity, that can be > different in every instant. Newton precisely developed a new > mathematics (differential and integral calculus) to manage that. > Resuming, in Newtonian mechanics, a reference system MUST be always > moving with an absolute UNIFORM velocity v (v equal 0 if the absolute > one, v different from 0 if a relative one). We must not confuse that > with the ANY velocity a body can has when described using any inertial > reference system. That is not all. Newton made clear that all such reference systems are moving with *relative* uniform velocities compared to each other. Thus the PoR is part of Newtonian mechanics. > What 1905 Einstein does is a violation of those Newtonian rules, > considering the moving system as if it were a body with any > instantaneous velocity in the stationary system. Not clear what you mean; but it does not matter as I already provided the example below. > > > 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). Correction: I should have written: FROM the turning points (that is clear from the context, but essential for a good understanding of the discussion here below). > I agree, because you are just describing Newtonian mechanics with its > unique absolute time t. I gave that example for ALL THE OTHER ISSUES... Do you agree that ideally a good clock is not affected by an infinitely short acceleration? > Remember that 1905 Einstein changes that. Remember that he kept all things the SAME except the specific new phenomena that follow from the new theory. So, here we go again: - When I use Newton's theory and introduce a moving system that is NOT moving with uniform motion with respect to the stationary system, and I nevertheless can make predictions about it, you say that you agree. - When Einstein does the same, based on identical reasoning, you say: "It is only moving instantaneously with uniform motion! This is the point that I cant accept without a previous explanation." > He > starts taking out the absolute system (and with it its absolute time > t) He does not discuss that, just as many didn't with classical mechanics. > , introducing a new Principle of Relativity with electrodynamics > laws holding good jointly with Newtonian mechanics ones, with a new > time definition based in the uniform and isotropic vacuum light > velocity c. > > 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"? > > All your Newtonian derivation is right. Let us see what happens when > you address the 1905R one. > > 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". > > I cant follow 1905 Einstein in this point. He is violating the > UNIFORM velocity condition stated in his first postulate (in the > version already referred above). If so, I similarly violated the UNIFORM velocity condition of Newton and you still agreed. > > 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. > > You forget that the Lorentz transformation you are using is derived > assuming a UNIFORM velocity for the moving system (check it in the > 1905 text). Thus you forget that the Galilean transformation that we were using above is derived assuming a UNIFORM velocity for the moving system (check it in any textbook). > In the turning points this is violated, you cant use then > the transformation in those points where the moving system has two > different velocities (vectors) at the same time, very different from a > uniform behaviour. I did not use the Galilean transformations nor the Lorentz transformations in the turning points themselves but only from those points, and as it was a crucial issue that you had to understand before reading on, I had added: "please check if you agree". > > 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. > > Now the violation is extended to all points, because the uniform > velocity condition doesnt apply to any of them. Again, I committed the same "sin" above with Newtonian mechanics, and not a glimpse of protest! > But you can ASSUME > that the transformation continue being valid in them, waiting for the > experimental support. That is why he wrote *if*: SRT does not predict a deviation from Newtonian mechanics for acceleration, but it was of course as unknown for him as for Newton. Note that Einstein already had approximate experimental support from the accelerating electron, which Lorentz had calculated before him. > > 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. > > The ECI is the centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the > Earth, including clocks or any other bodies in its surface (or any > other part) and its artificial GPS satellites. By sure this is a > totally Newtonian concept developed long before Einstein. > Your nearly uniform motion is not needed at all, it is sufficient > that the action of all the external world over the ECI provokes a > sufficiently approximate same acceleration in all its component > bodies. ??? I don't recognize anything Newtonian in what you claim; it certainly isn't conform "UNIFORM velocity" (emphasis yours). > Internally, the ECI (as ANY other centre of mass inertial > system) MUST be considered at rest. No, that is a free choice with Newtonian reference systems; and it is only valid insofar as the motion is accurately uniform in a straight line with reference to the distant stars. > 1905 Einstein denotation > stationary for the inertial systems is a completely adequate one. > The clock at the pole is not running slower owed to a speed, because > it is at a relative rest in the ECI. Nearly so: the clock at the pole only slowly rotates around itself, which is negligible. > In the model doesnt exist at all > the 30km/s Earths velocity in the Solar System (SS), and much less > the 250km/s of the SS in the Galaxy. > [..] > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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. 1905 Einstein is assuming that the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. Does Newton say something about dimensions? Remember that I am following 1905 Einstein. He says nothing about it. Following Einstein-1905, you should say: "If we next assume that gravitational potential has no effect on the dimensions of bodies, " etc. As the discussion is starting to turn in circles, I leave it herewith. Best regards, Harald
From: Dono. on 10 Jun 2010 18:58 On Jun 10, 10:56 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > I see that you are totally unable to raise any objection. Aside from the objection that you are an imbecile incapable of understanding the tens of objections I raised to your cretinisms? No.
From: Dono. on 11 Jun 2010 09:59
On Jun 11, 6:47 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/690c408f... > > I hope to receive strong criticism of it. > You already did, quite a few people showed that you are an idiot in the thread you keep citing. Now, you want the same people to show you are an idiot (the same idiot) in this thread. Done. |