Prev: Aunt Al plays pool with LHC's proton collider
Next: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Jul 2010 00:24
valls(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 1 jul, 23:21, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In this context, the essence of an observer is a set of coordinates and the
>> ability to note the location in that coordinate system of any event. No human is
>> required, nor is any mass. But if one uses an inertial coordinate system, then
>> it must move with speed less than c relative to any other inertial coordinate
>> system.
>>
> A system of coordinates is identified by 1905 Einstein with a rigid
> body, with more detail, with three rigid material lines.

Not really. He started out by saying "Let us take a system of coordinates in
which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good." [Einstein, 1905] That
says nothing about requiring a massive or rigid object.

But I have no interest in a Talmudic examination of an ancient text.


> I don�t care if what
> you say corresponds or not to the Special Relativity introduced by
> 1916 Einstein.

You are REALLY confused. Einstein did not "introduce" Special Relativity in
1916, he did that in 1905. I grant you that in 1915 or 1916 he distinguished his
then-new "algemeinen Relativit�tstheorie" from the 1905 theory by the adjective
"special" (nat�rlich auf deutsch). But he did not "introduce" or change that
older theory in any way.


>>>> Indeed, for multi-particle systems it is more common for observers to determine
>>>> the frame. Yes, one might well choose the c-o-m frame of the particles, but that
>>>> is the OBSERVER'S choice, and is not dictated by either the particles themselves
>>>> or by the theory.
>>> Totally non-sense in the 1905 Einstein�s view.
>> How can you claim that???? He did not discuss such things at all in that paper.
>>
> It is a well-established fact of the Newtonian mechanics that given
> any body set, there exists a UNIQUE centre of mass inertial frame
> corresponding to it, determined ONLY by the bodies themselves.

So you are adding your own interpretation and ideas to what Einstein wrote in
1905, and calling the combination "1905 Relativity" -- that's disingenuous at best.


> 1905
> Einstein is very clear putting out all Newtonian massless inertial
> frames.

Hmmmm. I did not notice that in his paper. Reference please. The above quote of
the first sentence of I.1 of his 1905 paper seems to contradict your claim. His
whole development hinges on that choice of coordinate system, with no visible
requirement of massive or rigid objects.


>> But no matter, because the SR we use today is the same theory as he presented in
>> 1905. We have learned A LOT about it, but the theory is the same (i.e. the set
>> of theorems has not changed, and the meanings of the symbols have not changed;
>> the experimental record is much more complete today than in 1905).
>>
> Your interpretation of 1905 Relativity is anti-historical, and then
> false. You put in 1905 Relativity a lot of things developed after
> 1905.

I do not refer to "1905 relativity" at all. I refer to the theory now known as
Special Relativity. It was introduced in 1905 and has not changed since. We have
learned A LOT about it, but no physical principles have changed, no theorems or
equations have changed, and the meanings of the symbols in the equations have
not changed -- that's why I say it is the same theory introduced in his 1905
paper titled "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K�rper".


> Perhaps you will be interested some day to know how 1905 Relativity
> can be used to manage gravity

I have little interest in something that is well known to be contrary to your
claims: we now know that the Principle of Equivalence must be added to handle
gravitation. I'm uninterested in chasing down dozens of pages of references; and
I'm uninterested in an incorrect theory, so just explain in a paragraph how
Einstein's 1905 paper CORRECTLY describes gravity (as I said before, he did
mention it, and GOT IT WRONG, and by 1909 he knew he got it wrong).


> [... more of the same uninteresting stuff]


Tom Roberts
From: Victar Shawnberger on 6 Jul 2010 05:01
On Jun 28, 2:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:9510ddde-8485-47a0-b60e-81cd189b8dd9(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 jun, 10:43, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, a "frame" really means a collection of rulers and clocks
> > associated with
> > an observer, not with any particles or objects.
>
> Are not the clocks and rules massive bodies for you? They are not
> “objects”? Only the absolute space and time can be measured with your
> non-massive rules and clocks. And of course, in the real world you
> will NEVER made a real measurement with those imaginary entities. All
> your measurements will be also only imaginary ones without any
> experimental value at all.
> ==================================================
> I'm with you on that one. Roberts is babbling idiot who doesn't know a
> frame of reference is a coordinate system that can be attached to any
> object, independent of any observer. You've just seen a perfect example
> of his complete ignorance.

i wonder why you interact,

please just contribute
From: Victar Shawnberger on 6 Jul 2010 05:07
On Jul 6, 5:17 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 4:48 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
>
>
> > No matter what interaction can you conceive between the bodies of some
> > c-o-m inertial frame, the c-o-m will remain always at rest.
>
> "At rest" with respect to what frame, old fart?

the universe frame of reference, if finite and homogeneous , as mister
Tom said, then it must have a superpositioned frame of reference,
which is the sum of all existent frames of reference

how do you like it
From: valls on 7 Jul 2010 07:58
On 5 jul, 22:17, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 4:48 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
>
>
> > No matter what interaction can you conceive between the bodies of some
> > c-o-m inertial frame, the c-o-m will remain always at rest.
>
> "At rest" with respect to what frame, old fart?

At rest with respect to the c-o-m inertial frame determined by the
selected body set. When a c-o-m inertial frame is conceived, there
exists the implicit assumption that the unique existing bodies are the
ones belonging to the starting body set. No existing in the model any
other entity to move with respect to it, the c-o-m must be always at
rest in its own inertial frame (this is a consequence of Newton's
laws, it is not a trivial fact as something at rest with respect to
itself). In the GPS ECI case, even the Moon is considered non-
existing. And of course, you can describe in the ECI only the bodies
of its body set, the only ones taking into account when determining
the c-o-m. This is a basic limitation in any c-o-m inertial frame.
This is why a Sun's trajectory in the ECI is only a big absurd. To
pretend describe the Sun's trajectory in an (only imaginary) non-
massive inertial frame moving at a uniform velocity with respect to
the ECI, is only an even more great absurd. There exists always a
unique c-o-m inertial frame corresponding to any selected body set.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 7 Jul 2010 09:44
On Jul 7, 4:58 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 5 jul, 22:17, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 4:48 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > No matter what interaction can you conceive between the bodies of some
> > > c-o-m inertial frame, the c-o-m will remain always at rest.
>
> > "At rest" with respect to what frame, old fart?
>
> At rest with respect to the c-o-m inertial frame determined by the
> selected body set.

That is, a frame that is at rest with respect to itself. You are a
much bigger idiot than shown before.





> In the GPS ECI case, even the Moon is considered non-
> existing.


Really? Using a frame makes the Moon "non-existing"? Wow!


> And of course, you can describe in the ECI only the bodies
> of its body set, the only ones taking into account when determining
> the c-o-m.

Nope, you are a much bigger idiot than imagined. Frames of reference
don't make material bodies "disappear"



..
> This is why a Sun's trajectory in the ECI is only a big absurd. To
> pretend describe the Sun's trajectory in an (only imaginary) non-
> massive inertial frame moving at a uniform velocity with respect to
> the ECI, is only an even more great absurd.

Why, imbecile?
The ECI is a frame like any other frame.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Aunt Al plays pool with LHC's proton collider
Next: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR