According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: blackhead on 22 May 2010 20:15 On 22 May, 02:19, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message > > news:f6138a42-e150-411c-9bed-3f510209de99(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > | On 21 May, 12:01, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > | > On 20 mayo, 21:42, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:><va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > | > > | > > >news:c13b9123-0513-4072-8dc5-54557b8cfaf5(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > | > > | > > > In his first Relativity paper (30June1905), after declaring the > ether > | > > > superfluous, Einstein considers a material point at rest. He uses a > | > > > system of Cartesian coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian > | > > > mechanics and Euclidean geometry hold good. If the massive body is > | > > > alone (and then without a Newtonian gravitational force acting on > it), > | > > > it must remains forever at rest in its own centre of mass inertial > | > > > frame. > | > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > | > > | > > Yeup .. do you think that is a problem? > | > > | > Not for me, but maybe for other persons. > | > In the Newtonian view (with absolute space and time), a single > | > material point can have any constant velocity v in an infinite > | > quantity of different inertial frames. > | > | > In the 1905 Einsteinian view (without absolute space and time), the > | > same single material point can have only the constant velocity v=0 in > | > a unique inertial frame. > | > Are we in agreement about that? > | > | You've forgotten that inertial frames can be rotated wrt with one > | another with v = 0 for the material point. > | > You've forgotten (or more likely never knew) that Einstein didn't have > anything to do with Newton's inertial frames and are irrelevant to SR. Einstein defines a frame of reference where the laws of electrodynamics and mechanics holds good. In a frame which is accelerated, a particle is measured to be accelerating even though there is no physical force acting on it. > "If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for > a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two > synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity > until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock > which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be > second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go > more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated > at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Albert Fuckwit > Einstein You can accelerate the frame of a clock to a frame which isn't accelerating to determine the time lapsed in that new frame, while making the time lapsed during acceleration negligible in omparison, as Einstein did here for a polygonal line.
From: Androcles on 22 May 2010 20:45 "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:23dacda0-1876-4750-a477-8ea0a987b6b4(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... On 22 May, 02:19, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message > > news:f6138a42-e150-411c-9bed-3f510209de99(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > | On 21 May, 12:01, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > | > On 20 mayo, 21:42, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > wrote:><va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > | > > | > > >news:c13b9123-0513-4072-8dc5-54557b8cfaf5(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > | > > | > > > In his first Relativity paper (30June1905), after declaring the > ether > | > > > superfluous, Einstein considers a material point at rest. He uses > a > | > > > system of Cartesian coordinates in which the equations of > Newtonian > | > > > mechanics and Euclidean geometry hold good. If the massive body is > | > > > alone (and then without a Newtonian gravitational force acting on > it), > | > > > it must remains forever at rest in its own centre of mass inertial > | > > > frame. > | > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > | > > | > > Yeup .. do you think that is a problem? > | > > | > Not for me, but maybe for other persons. > | > In the Newtonian view (with absolute space and time), a single > | > material point can have any constant velocity v in an infinite > | > quantity of different inertial frames. > | > | > In the 1905 Einsteinian view (without absolute space and time), the > | > same single material point can have only the constant velocity v=0 in > | > a unique inertial frame. > | > Are we in agreement about that? > | > | You've forgotten that inertial frames can be rotated wrt with one > | another with v = 0 for the material point. > | > You've forgotten (or more likely never knew) that Einstein didn't have > anything to do with Newton's inertial frames and are irrelevant to SR. Einstein defines a frame of reference where the laws of electrodynamics and mechanics holds good. =============================================== The laws of electrodynamics and mechanics hold good in all frames of reference, you just don't know what they are. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov You've forgotten (or more likely never knew) that Einstein didn't have anything to do with Newton's inertial frames and are irrelevant to SR.
From: Inertial on 23 May 2010 12:02 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:c6ed304a-e9b0-4817-92bc-102e23ef206b(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On May 21, 4:00 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Denial. It is not just a river |:-) > > Contrary to what someone wrote in this thread, a "frame of reference" > DOES have one visible object as referent. Wrong. You really should learn and understand physics before spouting such nonsense.
From: blackhead on 23 May 2010 21:08 On 23 May, 01:45, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message > > news:23dacda0-1876-4750-a477-8ea0a987b6b4(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On 22 May, 02:19, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message > > >news:f6138a42-e150-411c-9bed-3f510209de99(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > | On 21 May, 12:01, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > | > On 20 mayo, 21:42, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > > wrote:><va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message > > > | > > > | > > > >news:c13b9123-0513-4072-8dc5-54557b8cfaf5(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com.... > > | > > > | > > > In his first Relativity paper (30June1905), after declaring the > > ether > > | > > > superfluous, Einstein considers a material point at rest. He uses > > a > > | > > > system of Cartesian coordinates in which the equations of > > Newtonian > > | > > > mechanics and Euclidean geometry hold good. If the massive body is > > | > > > alone (and then without a Newtonian gravitational force acting on > > it), > > | > > > it must remains forever at rest in its own centre of mass inertial > > | > > > frame. > > | > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > | > > > | > > Yeup .. do you think that is a problem? > > | > > > | > Not for me, but maybe for other persons. > > | > In the Newtonian view (with absolute space and time), a single > > | > material point can have any constant velocity v in an infinite > > | > quantity of different inertial frames. > > | > > | > In the 1905 Einsteinian view (without absolute space and time), the > > | > same single material point can have only the constant velocity v=0 in > > | > a unique inertial frame. > > | > Are we in agreement about that? > > | > > | You've forgotten that inertial frames can be rotated wrt with one > > | another with v = 0 for the material point. > > | > > You've forgotten (or more likely never knew) that Einstein didn't have > > anything to do with Newton's inertial frames and are irrelevant to SR. > > Einstein defines a frame of reference where the laws of > electrodynamics and mechanics holds good. > =============================================== > The laws of electrodynamics and mechanics hold good in all > frames of reference, you just don't know what they are. > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov The Coriolis force is fictitous and not physical. No physical force acts on the mass in an accelerated frame, yet it's measured to accelerate and so the laws of mechanics don't hold there. > You've forgotten (or more likely never knew) that Einstein didn't have > anything to do with Newton's inertial frames and are irrelevant to SR.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 21:27
On May 23, 11:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:c6ed304a-e9b0-4817-92bc-102e23ef206b(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 21, 4:00 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Denial. It is not just a river |:-) > > > Contrary to what someone wrote in this thread, a "frame of reference" > > DOES have one visible object as referent. > > Wrong. You really should learn and understand physics before spouting such > nonsense. Inertial, you are the best!!!! |