According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 24 May 2010 08:38 On 21 mayo, 20:02, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > 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. > In 1905 Relativity we have no more absolute space and time. Then, any inertial frame must be derived from the bodies themselves. And considering any closed body set, they determine a unique inertial frame, the centre of mass one corresponding to all the bodies involved. If you consider for example the real Earth and its GPS satellites (and nothing more), we have a unique inertial frame (denoted ECI). The centre of mass (CM) must be considered always at rest, because when the CM is calculated, the only assumed existing bodies are the ones in the starting closed set. The Moon, the Sun and the rest of the Universe simply dont exist in the model. For a determined starting body set we have always a UNIQUE inertial frame. You cant have then two inertial frames with a relative rotational movement. The space corresponding to any inertial frame has all its points forever at rest. The bodies of the starting body set determine a unique space with all its points at rest. In the ECI, the real (fluid) Earth is rotating with a determined angular velocity, the poles are at rest (as all the rotating axis) and the equator surface is moving in a centripetal accelerated way (see the real example that appears at the end of paragraph 4 in the Einsteins 30Jun1905 text). Suppose we build a GPS in the Moon (with starting body set only the Moon and its satellites, the Earth is out here). The Earths GPS has no relation at all with the Moons GPS. But both Earth and Moon are real existing bodies, nobody can change that can say you. You are right, but if you want to study the relations between Earth and Moon, you must include both in the starting body set, obtaining then a different UNIQUE inertial frame with its own CM at rest. By the way, it is always inside the real Earth (not in the Earths centre), and this CM is the one running the ecliptic in one year. Let me know if all this information is sufficient to you for the understanding that in 1905 Relativity we havent rotating inertial frames. > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: blackhead on 24 May 2010 09:10 On 24 May, 13:38, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 21 mayo, 20:02, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > In 1905 Relativity we have no more absolute space and time. Then, any > inertial frame must be derived from the bodies themselves. And > considering any closed body set, they determine a unique inertial > frame, the centre of mass one corresponding to all the bodies > involved. If you consider for example the real Earth and its GPS > satellites (and nothing more), we have a unique inertial frame > (denoted ECI). The centre of mass (CM) must be considered always at > rest, because when the CM is calculated, the only assumed existing > bodies are the ones in the starting closed set. The Moon, the Sun and > the rest of the Universe simply dont exist in the model. For a > determined starting body set we have always a UNIQUE inertial frame. > You cant have then two inertial frames with a relative rotational > movement. The space corresponding to any inertial frame has all its > points forever at rest. The bodies of the starting body set determine > a unique space with all its points at rest. In the ECI, the real > (fluid) Earth is rotating with a determined angular velocity, the > poles are at rest (as all the rotating axis) and the equator surface > is moving in a centripetal accelerated way (see the real example that > appears at the end of paragraph 4 in the Einsteins 30Jun1905 text). > Suppose we build a GPS in the Moon (with starting body set only the > Moon and its satellites, the Earth is out here). The Earths GPS has > no relation at all with the Moons GPS. But both Earth and Moon are > real existing bodies, nobody can change that can say you. You are > right, but if you want to study the relations between Earth and Moon, > you must include both in the starting body set, obtaining then a > different UNIQUE inertial frame with its own CM at rest. By the way, > it is always inside the real Earth (not in the Earths centre), and > this CM is the one running the ecliptic in one year. > Let me know if all this information is sufficient to you for the > understanding that in 1905 Relativity we havent rotating inertial > frames. I was talking about inertial frames rotated wrt one another, not rotating wrt one another. In your frame, you can create another just by rotating it, keeping v = 0. > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: valls on 25 May 2010 11:19 On 24 mayo, 07:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 6:13 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 mayo, 10:22, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 6:27 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 20 mayo, 13:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 20, 8:19 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yes. So? > > > > > > Every object lives in an infinite multitude of frames. The ones that > > > > > have constant velocity with the frame you just described, plus this > > > > > frame itself, constitutes the set of inertial frames. > > > > > If we apply that to the single material point case, the result is an > > > > infinite number of inertial frames where the single material point can > > > > be moving with any velocity v. > > > > Any velocity of magnitude less than c, yes. So? > > > > > Once the ether is put out by 1905 > > > > Einstein (and with it the Newtonian absolute space and time), can you > > > > explain to me with respect to what a single material point can have > > > > then a velocity different from zero? > > > > A reference frame does not require a material "anchor" object, for > > > which that anchor object is at rest in that frame. > > > What do you say is totally valid in today Special Relativity, but not > > in 1905 Relativity. See the following references to the 30Jun1905 > > text. > > Almost at the end of the Introduction: > > R1. [The theory to be developed is based like all electrodynamics on > > the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such > > theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (system > > of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.] > > At the beginning of paragraph 3: > > R2. [Let us in stationary space take two systems of co-ordinates, > > i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to > > one another, and issuing from a point.] > > In R1 a system of co-ordinates is identified with a rigid body, and in > > R2 (more detailed) with a system of tree rigid material lines. Even a > > single material point must have some mass, imagine tree material > > lines. Do you continue thinking that in 1905 Relativity a reference > > frame does not require something material to establish the rest? > > Yes. Just because Einstein uses a material framework to *explain* his > position does not mean that it is essential to the conceptual > framework. The idea of reference frames without material anchors > preceded Einstein by at least a century. > And what? How many centuries preceded Ptolemaic view the Newtonian one? Taking out the ether with its Newtonian absolute space and absolute time is the essence of the Einsteinian relativistic view. In it remain only the material bodies themselves to determine inertial frames. You are free to support the old Newtonian view if you want, but that doesnt give you the right to say that in 1905 Relativity a reference frame does not require something material. You cant change what 1905 Einstein writes, even thinking you that it is something wrong. > > > > > If that were the case, then for two reference frames to even exist, > > > you'd need two objects. For three, you'd need three objects. > > > Exactly. See in the previous reference R2 a different material object > > for each one of the two different reference systems introduced.> This however, is not the case. A reference frame has a perfectly well- > > > defined meaning with or without a material anchor in it. > > > A valid assertion in today Special Relativity, but a totally invalid > > one in 1905 Relativity. In this thread we are addressing only 1905 > > Relativity (see the title). > > This, in my opinion, is a boondoggle. > I don't see the point of it at all. > Relativity is relativity. It is not a *creation*, it is a discovery. > When the first sailors navigated to the New World, they drew maps that > represented their view of their discovery. Of course, those maps did > not at all accurately represent the shape of the Americas. It does > absolutely no good to take one of those maps and say, "But this is the > America of 1500." It is not. The shape of the continent has not > substantively changed since 1500. The America of 1500 is the same as > the America of 2010. It's just that how people have described it is a > little different from 1500 to 2010. > If I am interpreting well, you are suggesting that 1905 Relativity contains errors (first sailors making bad America maps) that were already corrected in today Special Relativity. And surely you think that the need to have material bodies to determine an inertial frame is one of these errors. 1916 Einstein introduces the word Special to distinguish the previous Relativity (denoted SR) from his General Relativity (GR) that he is just introducing. But we have here a very strange situation. The essence of the new GR is precisely the introduction of material (massive) bodies that warp the space-time (without material bodies!) introduced by 1907 Minkowski (1907M). Then, 1907M is the one putting out the material bodies from 1905 Relativity, conceiving a space-time totally independent from them (similar in that to the Newtonian absolute space and time, but now with a very strong relationship between space and time). Einstein accepts the changes 1907M introduces in Relativity and works for years (without success) in the developing of a relativistic gravitation. He ends declaring Relativity (the modified one by 1907M) not able to address gravitation, developing his successful 1916GR gravitation theory. He works then the rest of his life trying (without success) to put into accord GR with the rest of Physics, a problem that remains open until our days. Suppose now that somebody finds the way to explain GR effects (like the ones necessary to adjust GPS clocks in the Earths gravitational field), but using only 1905 Relativity (Newtonian mechanics, Euclidean geometry). Would you consider that a boondoggle? (English is not my mother language, and I dont know the meaning of that word). > > > > > Thus, a single material object lives in not one, but an infinitude of > > > reference frames. In one of those inertial reference frames, the > > > object happens to be at rest. > > > The Earth modelled as a single material point in its centre of mass is > > at rest in the GPS ECI System, moving in a monthly almost circular > > trajectory around the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon System (CMEM), > > and that CMEM is moving in a yearly trajectory around the centre of > > mass of the Solar System (CMSS). The CMSS has a velocity of about > > 250Km/s in the Galaxy System, etc. Are these systems the ones you have > > in mind when talking about infinite ones? > > No, because they aren't inertial, are they? > Of course that they are inertial ones, or maybe consider you that an inertial frame is only a mathematical entity? The Solar System is the more exact real inertial system used by men. And we can make a similar remark referring to the GPS ECI. By the way, they are both centre of mass inertial systems, supported by huge experimental evidence. > > > > Do you consider that the > > different states of motion of the Earth in those different systems are > > totally equivalent ones? Or maybe some one is more valid that some > > other? > > > > > The question of interest is what is the relationship between various > > > > > physical properties, as measured in different inertial frames? > > > > > Yes, but before addressing that we must put clear which are the > > > > inertial frames involved. > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) I noted you dont answer my questions about the validity of different inertial systems. Have you some problem with it? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 25 May 2010 11:46 On May 25, 10:19 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 24 mayo, 07:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 24, 6:13 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 21 mayo, 10:22, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 6:27 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 20 mayo, 13:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 8:19 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Yes. So? > > > > > > > Every object lives in an infinite multitude of frames. The ones that > > > > > > have constant velocity with the frame you just described, plus this > > > > > > frame itself, constitutes the set of inertial frames. > > > > > > If we apply that to the single material point case, the result is an > > > > > infinite number of inertial frames where the single material point can > > > > > be moving with any velocity v. > > > > > Any velocity of magnitude less than c, yes. So? > > > > > > Once the ether is put out by 1905 > > > > > Einstein (and with it the Newtonian absolute space and time), can you > > > > > explain to me with respect to what a single material point can have > > > > > then a velocity different from zero? > > > > > A reference frame does not require a material "anchor" object, for > > > > which that anchor object is at rest in that frame. > > > > What do you say is totally valid in today Special Relativity, but not > > > in 1905 Relativity. See the following references to the 30Jun1905 > > > text. > > > Almost at the end of the Introduction: > > > R1. [The theory to be developed is based like all electrodynamics on > > > the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such > > > theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (system > > > of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.] > > > At the beginning of paragraph 3: > > > R2. [Let us in stationary space take two systems of co-ordinates, > > > i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to > > > one another, and issuing from a point.] > > > In R1 a system of co-ordinates is identified with a rigid body, and in > > > R2 (more detailed) with a system of tree rigid material lines. Even a > > > single material point must have some mass, imagine tree material > > > lines. Do you continue thinking that in 1905 Relativity a reference > > > frame does not require something material to establish the rest? > > > Yes. Just because Einstein uses a material framework to *explain* his > > position does not mean that it is essential to the conceptual > > framework. The idea of reference frames without material anchors > > preceded Einstein by at least a century. > > And what? How many centuries preceded Ptolemaic view the Newtonian > one? > Taking out the ether with its Newtonian absolute space and absolute > time is the essence of the Einsteinian relativistic view. Yes. > In it remain > only the material bodies themselves to determine inertial frames. No. Again, you feel it is essential to anchor a frame to *something* material for some reason. Thus, if the aether is removed, then to you it MUST be material bodies. And if loosed from material bodies, then to you this DEMANDS the aether back again. This is simply wrong. Reference frames do not need material anchors, period. And they did not, for a long time preceding Einstein. Newtonian mechanics easily considered motion in frames in which there was no material object, including any supposed ether, at rest. > You are free to support the old Newtonian view if you want, but that > doesnt give you the right to say that in 1905 Relativity a reference > frame does not require something material. You cant change what 1905 > Einstein writes, even thinking you that it is something wrong. > > > > > > > > > If that were the case, then for two reference frames to even exist, > > > > you'd need two objects. For three, you'd need three objects. > > > > Exactly. See in the previous reference R2 a different material object > > > for each one of the two different reference systems introduced.> This however, is not the case. A reference frame has a perfectly well- > > > > defined meaning with or without a material anchor in it. > > > > A valid assertion in today Special Relativity, but a totally invalid > > > one in 1905 Relativity. In this thread we are addressing only 1905 > > > Relativity (see the title). > > > This, in my opinion, is a boondoggle. > > I don't see the point of it at all. > > Relativity is relativity. It is not a *creation*, it is a discovery. > > When the first sailors navigated to the New World, they drew maps that > > represented their view of their discovery. Of course, those maps did > > not at all accurately represent the shape of the Americas. It does > > absolutely no good to take one of those maps and say, "But this is the > > America of 1500." It is not. The shape of the continent has not > > substantively changed since 1500. The America of 1500 is the same as > > the America of 2010. It's just that how people have described it is a > > little different from 1500 to 2010. > > If I am interpreting well, you are suggesting that 1905 Relativity > contains errors (first sailors making bad America maps) that were > already corrected in today Special Relativity. And surely you think > that the need to have material bodies to determine an inertial frame > is one of these errors. Not errors per se. Just not completely worked out, and so there is an incomplete presentation of the model. A map of the eastern seaboard of the Americas is not inaccurate, but it is not a good map of the Americas, either, because it is not completely articulated. > 1916 Einstein introduces the word Special to distinguish the > previous Relativity (denoted SR) from his General Relativity (GR) that > he is just introducing. But we have here a very strange situation. The > essence of the new GR is precisely the introduction of material > (massive) bodies that warp the space-time (without material bodies!) > introduced by 1907 Minkowski (1907M). Then, 1907M is the one putting > out the material bodies from 1905 Relativity, conceiving a space-time > totally independent from them (similar in that to the Newtonian > absolute space and time, but now with a very strong relationship > between space and time). Einstein accepts the changes 1907M introduces > in Relativity and works for years (without success) in the developing > of a relativistic gravitation. He ends declaring Relativity (the > modified one by 1907M) not able to address gravitation, developing his > successful 1916GR gravitation theory. He works then the rest of his > life trying (without success) to put into accord GR with the rest of > Physics, a problem that remains open until our days. > Suppose now that somebody finds the way to explain GR effects (like > the ones necessary to adjust GPS clocks in the Earths gravitational > field), but using only 1905 Relativity (Newtonian mechanics, Euclidean > geometry). Would you consider that a boondoggle? (English is not my > mother language, and I dont know the meaning of that word). By my guest. Would love to see it. > > > > > > > > > Thus, a single material object lives in not one, but an infinitude of > > > > reference frames. In one of those inertial reference frames, the > > > > object happens to be at rest. > > > > The Earth modelled as a single material point in its centre of mass is > > > at rest in the GPS ECI System, moving in a monthly almost circular > > > trajectory around the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon System (CMEM), > > > and that CMEM is moving in a yearly trajectory around the centre of > > > mass of the Solar System (CMSS). The CMSS has a velocity of about > > > 250Km/s in the Galaxy System, etc. Are these systems the ones you have > > > in mind when talking about infinite ones? > > > No, because they aren't inertial, are they? > > Of course that they are inertial ones, or maybe consider you that an > inertial frame is only a mathematical entity? No, they are not. Circularly or elliptically moving systems are not in inertial motion. > The Solar System is the > more exact real inertial system used by men. And we can make a similar > remark referring to the GPS ECI. By the way, they are both centre of > mass inertial systems, supported by huge experimental evidence. > > > > > > > > Do you consider that the > > > different states of motion of the Earth in those different systems are > > > totally equivalent ones? Or maybe some one is more valid that some > > > other? > > > > > > The question of interest is what is the relationship between various > > > > > > physical properties, as measured in different inertial frames? > > > > > > Yes, but before addressing that we must put clear which are the > > > > > inertial frames involved. > > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > I noted you dont answer my questions about the validity of different > inertial systems. Have you some problem with it? The frames you mentioned are not inertial. Circularly moving bodies are not in inertial motion. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: blackhead on 25 May 2010 14:25
On 24 May, 07:44, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message > > news:70a4084b-2807-4b96-8581-028720ba39c1(a)m21g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > 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. > =================================== > Who mentioned any force? > Certainly not I. > > Androcles' first law of rotating frames of reference: In a rotating frame of > reference every body perseveres in its state of circular motion, or of > uniform motion in a perfect circle, unless it is compelled to change that > state by forces impressed thereon. Newton's definition of a force changed the velocity of a body. What is Androcles's definition of a force? > The laws of electrodynamics in rotating frames of reference apply to > electric motors and generators, look up Fleming's left hand rule. > > In the frame of reference of the overhead camera the ball follows a straight > line. > In the frame of reference of the carousel camera the ball follows a circle. > No forces involved, fictitious or otherwise. > There is only one ball, but two frames of reference. > > The laws of electrodynamics and mechanics hold good in all frames of > reference, *you* just don't know what those laws are and the pathetic > ranting dork Einstein hasn't told you, he didn't know either. > > You obviously don't know any physics, all you know is SR. > SR is fictitious and not physical.- Hide quoted text - SR postulates that physics has another symmetry - Lorentz covariance. It predicts the equivalence of mass and energy, time dilation, Thomas Precesion, transverse doppler shift etc. What make you think it's fictitious and not physical? > - Show quoted text - |