Prev: Aunt Al plays pool with LHC's proton collider
Next: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
From: valls on 7 Jul 2010 15:17
On 5 jul, 23:24, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> va...(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.
>
Read only few lines above your own reference:
[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 (systems of co-
ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.]
See how 1905 Einstein identify very clearly rigid bodies with systems
of co-ordinates. At the beginning of paragraph 3 you can read: [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.]
You know that even a single material point model has already
associated with it a mass. After 1905 Einstein rejecting the non-
massive Newton’s absolute frame (and the also non-massive derived from
it ones with all possible uniform velocities), the presence of mass in
1905 Relativity is a very essential point to take into account. The
centre of mass inertial frames determined by body sets, remain the
unique possible inertial frames in 1905 Relativity. In the 1907
Minkowski view, non-massive inertial frames are re-introduced (among
other very important changes). This is why I insist in distinguish
1905 Relativity from the 1916 Einstein denoted “Special Relativity”
theory.

> But I have no interest in a Talmudic examination of an ancient text.
>
Even knowing that effects only explained today using General
Relativity are derived already using only the very much simple 1905
Relativity?
> > 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.
>
I referred already the very important changes introduced already by
1907 Minkowski (and accepted by Einstein), which are considered today
essential contents of Special Relativity (SR). In his road toward
General Relativity (GR), Einstein introduced not less important
changes (like the “local” character of SR inertial frames as part of
GR, close related with the prohibition to use SR for gravity
issues).
> >>>> 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.
>
I am making a valid historical interpretation of the old text, not
including in it any concept developed in the text future. But a
derivation from the text respecting the historic context is another
thing. As an example, the impossible use of the today rest mass
concept with an associated energy not related at all with potential or
kinetic energies (obviously developed after 1905), made possible the
discovery about the presence of all kind of potential energies in
1905R (first of all the gravitational one), with rest mass measuring
them without the presence of arbitrary additive constants. As another
example, detecting that 1905 Einstein put out all non-massive inertial
frames, it made possible the discovery about centre of mass inertial
frames being the unique ones in 1905R, not accepting then the re-
introduction of the non-massive ones by 1907 Minkowski.
> > 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.
>
You seem not to be a sufficient good old text reader (surely because
you have not yet realized that something useful for today goals can be
found in them, considering the activity only a waste of time). I made
already the references you are claiming, putting very clear that we
have only massive inertial frames in 1905 Relativity.
> >> 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".
>
Remember that the topic of this thread is 1905 Relativity. I proved
you already with sufficient details and adequate references to the
1905 text that your identification of Special Relativity with 1905
Relativity is a wrong one.
> > 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).
>
All the events you refer occur after 1905. How can you think that they
can affect a 1905 achievement? I mean a 1905 based achievement, of
course that some derivations from the 1905 text must be done, but they
must respect the 1905 historical context. To start with, see the first
post of the following link where the correct atomic clock behaviour in
a gravitational field is derived only from 1905 Relativity.
Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905
Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/03bca70857f75c63?hl=es#

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

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 7 Jul 2010 15:49
On 7 jul, 08:44, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
Read with more care. I put clear that the rest of the c-o-m with
respect to the body set is not a trivial rest with respect to itself,
it is a derived consequence from Newton's laws. In any elemental
Physics book you can obtain the details.
> >  In the GPS ECI case, even the Moon is considered non-
> > existing.
>
> Really? Using a frame makes the Moon "non-existing"? Wow!
>
You seem not knowing what is a model. Yes, the Moon doesn't exist in
the GPS ECI model. You didn't know that?
>  > 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"
>
In the Galileo's ship all the external world dissapear closing all the
windows. In 1913 N.Bohr H atom model, a Universe with only one proton
and one electron is put into existence.
> .
>
> > 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.
The ECI is a real massive inertial frame. A non-massive inertial frame
moving with a uniform velocity with respect to the ECI is only an
imaginary one with no value at all. You can't make any real
measurement with it. In 1905 Relativity we have only real centre of
mass inertial frames.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 7 Jul 2010 17:41
On Jul 7, 12:49 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> The ECI is a real massive inertial frame. A non-massive inertial frame
> moving with a uniform velocity with respect to the ECI is only an
> imaginary one with no value at all.

you are a pathetic imbecile
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Jul 2010 19:24
valls(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> I am making a valid historical interpretation of the old text, not
> including in it any concept developed in the text future.

So point out the paragraph where Einstein says rigid means massive.

It certainly is possible to have rigid coordinates without mass, because
coordinates are ABSTRACT.

It's even possible to have two objects move rigidly, without
any mass between them: consider two robotic rockets with
identical programs, launched from different points of an
inertial frame. They move rigidly wrt that frame.

And the whole argument is irrelevant -- in physics it is often necessary to make
approximations, and one can always consider successively less-massive rulers and
clocks, until their mass is negligible. Do you really think the mass of my tape
measure is important on the scale of the earth?


Tom Roberts
From: valls on 12 Jul 2010 10:00
On 9 jul, 18:24, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > I am making a valid historical interpretation of the old text, not
> > including in it any concept developed in the text future.
>
> So point out the paragraph where Einstein says rigid means massive.
>
Point out in my last post where I say that Einstein literally says
rigid means massive. I was the one asking you if you think that the
rigid material lines referred by 1905 Einstein are not massive
entities, remembering you that already a single material point models
a massive entity.
> It certainly is possible to have rigid coordinates without mass, because
> coordinates are ABSTRACT.
>
Coordinates are abstract in the Newtonian view, not in the 1905
Einstein’s one. I referred already at the end of paragraph 4 the real
massive rotating Earth determining a (non-abstract) coordinate system.
I also commented in my last post that the rigid character is really
not necessary for massive bodies to determine a coordinate system.
>         It's even possible to have two objects move rigidly, without
>         any mass between them: consider two robotic rockets with
>         identical programs, launched from different points of an
>         inertial frame. They move rigidly wrt that frame.
>
> And the whole argument is irrelevant -- in physics it is often necessary to make
> approximations, and one can always consider successively less-massive rulers and
> clocks, until their mass is negligible. Do you really think the mass of my tape
> measure is important on the scale of the earth?
>
The tape is simply part of the body set determining the coordinate
system. Of course that the mass of the Earth is the fundamental one.
Your last arguments are the ones totally irrelevant. The massive
character of 1905 Einstein systems of coordinates is a totally
irrefutable fact. It is a direct consequence of the rejection of the
abstract absolute frame (and all the other dependent from it, also
abstract ones).
> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
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