The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
Next: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing
From: harald on 20 Jul 2010 09:43 On Jul 19, 8:53 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 19 jul, 09:58, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [..] > > > The topic of this thread is only 1905 Relativity. > > > Same as Sr > > Read by yourself the 1905 text to convince that 1905 Relativity > (1905R) is not Special Relativity (SR), a denotation introduced by > 1916 Einstein to distinguish his previous work on Relativity from his > new General Relativity (GR) theory. Between 1905 and 1916 many changes > were introduced in Relativity. For example, space and time remain > separated in 1905R, but they were united in the space-time concept > developed in the work of 1907 Minkowski. Hi Rafael, the space-time concept already existed with Newton and the new spacetime invariance toolbox was presented by Poincare in 1905. Minkowski did introduce another, geometrical *philosophy* that goes with SRT if one wishes but which isn't SRT; not all physics books mention it. > In 1905R is used Euclidean > geometry, Cartesian coordinates and Newtonian mechanics (see the > beginning of the paragraph 1 in the 30Jun1905 paper), different > from today SR characterized by a pseudo-Euclidean geometry. Still today there is no need to use pseudo-Euclidean geometry; at least in the 1980's when I learned SRT, it was taught with Euclidean geometry and Cartesian coordinates. And note that in 1905 Einstein (just as Lorentz before him) introduced a slight correction of Newtonian mechanics. Perhaps you never read beyond the first sections?? > Gravity was > declared out from SR, but in the real example present in 1905R (at the > end of paragraph 4 of the same referenced paper), we find as the > moving system a clock at the equator with a gravitational > centripetal accelerated circular path. I already explained your error on that one twice, after Einstein explained it clearly in 1905. Useless to explain again. However, you *should* try to understand how Lorentz and Einstein could predict the accelerated electron behaviour (SRT's first verified prediction) while only relating to inertial coordinate systems for the physics, and without accounting for gravitation. Perhaps there still is hope. ;-) Regards, Harald
From: harald on 20 Jul 2010 09:58 On Jul 20, 1:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 19 jul, 18:16, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:03 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 19 jul, 15:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 2:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:36, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view > > > > > > > > > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian > > > > > > > > > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to > > > > > > > > > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following > > > > > > > > > > > Newtons laws (Tycho Brahes work precedes Newtons one). > > > > > > > > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > > > > > > > > To describe > > > > > > > > > > > the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass > > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), > > > > > > > > > > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI. > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago.. How dense > > > > > > > > are you? > > > > > > > > We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905 > > > > > > > Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian > > > > > > > mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the > > > > > > > ECI using Newton's laws. > > > > > > > Imbecile, Tycho Brahe already showed how this can be done 600 years > > > > > > ago. See here :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm > > > > > > Incredible! Tycho Brahe using Newton's laws. Surely he made a time > > > > > travel. > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. One can describe a trajectory by either > > > > detailed observation or by theoretical prediction, and in fact one > > > > should have both and compare them to see if the theory is any good. > > > > But Brahe's data are quite good descriptions of the trajectories. > > > > > Are you claiming that Newton's laws cannot describe motion from a > > > > center-of-mass coordinate? > > > > By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > > > unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, > > > And that is simply wrong. There is no support for that in the paper. > > That it does an analysis on and pair of arbitrarily moving bodies does > > NOT mean that it only applies to centre-of-mass frames. Simply that > > associating a frame with an (imaginary) object makes it easier to > > picture > > In the Introduction of his 30Jun1905 paper, 1905 Einstein put out very > clearly the Newtonian absolute inertial frame (and then also any > other thing derived from it). No, he merely did not *include* it and like everyone else before him he *kept* everything that was derived from it. The text is the following: > [The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an absolutely stationary space provided with special properties, nor > assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place.] Originally "insofar as" was emphasized - as you now know! Don't you understand the meaning of that word? Don't you understand the words "do not require", and "nor assign"? > If you dont have already empty inertial frames (not related with > massive bodies) moving with absolute uniform velocities (nor assign a > velocity-vector to a point of empty space), what remains to determine > inertial frames? He explained that in the *same* paragraph - as he likely was taught: "all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." [..] > If you have any other valid interpretation of > the 1905 text, put it here to consider it. No you won't! > Put an explicit example for > an inertial frame (a stationary system using 1905 Einstein denotation) > that is not a centre of mass one corresponding to some body set. You should be able to do that yourself, as *any* one is suited (just more complex to calculate)! Therefore this was the last time for me to try to get through to you, as I'm quite sure that you will again not hear what I say. Regards, Harald
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 11:19 On Jul 19, 6:03 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 19 jul, 15:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 19 jul, 08:36, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view > > > > > > > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian > > > > > > > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to > > > > > > > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following > > > > > > > > > Newtons laws (Tycho Brahes work precedes Newtons one). > > > > > > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > > > > > > To describe > > > > > > > > > the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass > > > > > > > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), > > > > > > > > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI. > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago. How dense > > > > > > are you? > > > > > > We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905 > > > > > Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian > > > > > mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the > > > > > ECI using Newton's laws. > > > > > Imbecile, Tycho Brahe already showed how this can be done 600 years > > > > ago. See here :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm > > > > Incredible! Tycho Brahe using Newton's laws. Surely he made a time > > > travel. > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. One can describe a trajectory by either > > detailed observation or by theoretical prediction, and in fact one > > should have both and compare them to see if the theory is any good. > > But Brahe's data are quite good descriptions of the trajectories. > > > Are you claiming that Newton's laws cannot describe motion from a > > center-of-mass coordinate? > > By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, and they are > precisely the stationary systems in which Newtonian equations hold > good. I'm sorry but this is not correct. I've already mentioned this. Taking an ordinary example, you can look at the collision of a cue ball with a set of billiard balls on a table. You may take, for example, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum as relevant laws of physics. You can verify that those laws hold in the frame where the center of mass of this system of balls is at rest, and you can also verify that these laws hold in the frame where the center of mass of this system has constant velocity in any direction and in any amount. It is this set of frames (and there is an infinite number of them) in which the laws of mechanics hold, and it is this set of frames that are the inertial ones. If you've not been through this simple exercise in freshman mechanics, then you were poorly served in your education. > But centre of mass inertial frames have implicitly a limitation, > they can be used only to describe the bodies belonging to its body set > (the bodies used when determining the centre of mass). Then, for the > persons that think (like you and Dono) that in 1905 Relativity any > inertial frame can be used to describe any body (an attribute that > only have the non-massive inertial frames already put out by 1905 > Einstein), I select one centre of mass inertial frame and require to > describe in it the trajectory of some body not belonging to its body > set (as is the case for the ECI and the Sun, not belonging the Sun to > the ECI body set). To describe the trajectory of that body not > belonging to the body set of a centre of mass inertial frame, a > violation of Newtons laws is necessary. No sir, no violation of Newton's laws is required. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: valls on 20 Jul 2010 15:37 On 20 jul, 10:19, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 6:03 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 jul, 15:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:36, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view > > > > > > > > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian > > > > > > > > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to > > > > > > > > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following > > > > > > > > > > Newtons laws (Tycho Brahes work precedes Newtons one). > > > > > > > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > > > > > > > To describe > > > > > > > > > > the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), > > > > > > > > > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI. > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago. How dense > > > > > > > are you? > > > > > > > We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905 > > > > > > Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian > > > > > > mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the > > > > > > ECI using Newton's laws. > > > > > > Imbecile, Tycho Brahe already showed how this can be done 600 years > > > > > ago. See here :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm > > > > > Incredible! Tycho Brahe using Newton's laws. Surely he made a time > > > > travel. > > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. One can describe a trajectory by either > > > detailed observation or by theoretical prediction, and in fact one > > > should have both and compare them to see if the theory is any good. > > > But Brahe's data are quite good descriptions of the trajectories. > > > > Are you claiming that Newton's laws cannot describe motion from a > > > center-of-mass coordinate? > > > By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > > unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, and they are > > precisely the stationary systems in which Newtonian equations hold > > good. > > I'm sorry but this is not correct. I've already mentioned this. > Taking an ordinary example, you can look at the collision of a cue > ball with a set of billiard balls on a table. You may take, for > example, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum as relevant > laws of physics. You can verify that those laws hold in the frame > where the center of mass of this system of balls is at rest, and you > can also verify that these laws hold in the frame where the center of > mass of this system has constant velocity in any direction and in any > amount. It is this set of frames (and there is an infinite number of > them) in which the laws of mechanics hold, and it is this set of > frames that are the inertial ones. > > If you've not been through this simple exercise in freshman mechanics, > then you were poorly served in your education. > When you select some body set to consider its centre of mass inertial frame, you are making a model of some part of Nature. There exist here some implicit assumptions. One of them is that you consider all the bodies in the set modelled by a material point (to be able to compute the position of the centre of mass from the positions of the bodies). Another one is to consider the body set the whole Universe, in the model doesnt exist any other body (for example, when 1913 N.Bohr made his H atom model, he considers an electron and a proton as the unique bodies in the Universe). The fact is that the existence of any other body alters the position of the centre of mass, and there exist a unique centre of mass system for any determined starting body set. The rule is then inside the system all, outside the system nothing (the all can be only two bodies, or even a single one). Once the centre of mass is determined, you cant put in or out any body. An important theorem of the Newtonian mechanics is that the state of motion of the centre of mass is independent from the interactions that can exist among his bodies. But being the body set the whole Universe, its centre of mass must remain at rest forever, at least in 1905 Relativity where the absolute frame is out and doesnt exist any exterior thing to move with respect to it. This is the point where we are not in agreement, you think that in 1905 Relativity we can consider the centre of mass moving with any uniform velocity with respect to nothing, not realizing that this implies a re-introduction of the Newtonian absolute frame (and all the derived relative and apparent ones moving with all possible absolute uniform velocities). Perhaps more difficult to see at a first glance is that the moving of the centre of mass with respect to a non-massive entity implies a coarse violation of Newtons laws in the context of 1905 Relativity, where bodies with small mass usually has high velocity and the inverse. > > But centre of mass inertial frames have implicitly a limitation, > > they can be used only to describe the bodies belonging to its body set > > (the bodies used when determining the centre of mass). Then, for the > > persons that think (like you and Dono) that in 1905 Relativity any > > inertial frame can be used to describe any body (an attribute that > > only have the non-massive inertial frames already put out by 1905 > > Einstein), I select one centre of mass inertial frame and require to > > describe in it the trajectory of some body not belonging to its body > > set (as is the case for the ECI and the Sun, not belonging the Sun to > > the ECI body set). To describe the trajectory of that body not > > belonging to the body set of a centre of mass inertial frame, a > > violation of Newtons laws is necessary. > > No sir, no violation of Newton's laws is required. > Of course yes. The position of the centre of mass is determined by the strict application of Newtons laws to all the bodies involved. When you try to describe the movement of a new body maintaining the old centre of mass at rest, you have no more an inertial frame, because with the addition of the new body, a new centre of mass must be computed to obtain a new inertial frame. Only in the new inertial frame you can describe the trajectory of the new body without violating Newtons laws. Consider the ECI. As in any centre of mass inertial frame, you can describe the trajectory of all the bodies involved with the strict application of Newtons laws (a clock at a pole, a clock at the equator, all the GPS satellites, etc.). But now you pretend to describe the Suns trajectory in the ECI. What occurs? The new centre of mass is now practically the Suns centre, the unique one that can be used to describe the Suns trajectory without a violation of Newtons laws (of course, the Suns trajectory is then a very tiny circle around the new centre of mass). The trajectory of the ECI in the new system is of course more or less the known one in the Solar System. It is absolutely impossible to describe a moving Sun with respect to an Earth at rest without a violation of Newtons laws. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 17:54
On Jul 20, 2:37 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 20 jul, 10:19, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 6:03 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 19 jul, 15:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 2:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:36, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view > > > > > > > > > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian > > > > > > > > > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to > > > > > > > > > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following > > > > > > > > > > > Newtons laws (Tycho Brahes work precedes Newtons one). > > > > > > > > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > > > > > > > > To describe > > > > > > > > > > > the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass > > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), > > > > > > > > > > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI. > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago.. How dense > > > > > > > > are you? > > > > > > > > We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905 > > > > > > > Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian > > > > > > > mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the > > > > > > > ECI using Newton's laws. > > > > > > > Imbecile, Tycho Brahe already showed how this can be done 600 years > > > > > > ago. See here :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm > > > > > > Incredible! Tycho Brahe using Newton's laws. Surely he made a time > > > > > travel. > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. One can describe a trajectory by either > > > > detailed observation or by theoretical prediction, and in fact one > > > > should have both and compare them to see if the theory is any good. > > > > But Brahe's data are quite good descriptions of the trajectories. > > > > > Are you claiming that Newton's laws cannot describe motion from a > > > > center-of-mass coordinate? > > > > By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > > > unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, and they are > > > precisely the stationary systems in which Newtonian equations hold > > > good. > > > I'm sorry but this is not correct. I've already mentioned this. > > Taking an ordinary example, you can look at the collision of a cue > > ball with a set of billiard balls on a table. You may take, for > > example, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum as relevant > > laws of physics. You can verify that those laws hold in the frame > > where the center of mass of this system of balls is at rest, and you > > can also verify that these laws hold in the frame where the center of > > mass of this system has constant velocity in any direction and in any > > amount. It is this set of frames (and there is an infinite number of > > them) in which the laws of mechanics hold, and it is this set of > > frames that are the inertial ones. > > > If you've not been through this simple exercise in freshman mechanics, > > then you were poorly served in your education. > > When you select some body set to consider its centre of mass inertial > frame, you are making a model of some part of Nature. There exist here > some implicit assumptions. One of them is that you consider all the > bodies in the set modelled by a material point (to be able to compute > the position of the centre of mass from the positions of the bodies). > Another one is to consider the body set the whole Universe, in the > model doesnt exist any other body (for example, when 1913 N.Bohr made > his H atom model, he considers an electron and a proton as the unique > bodies in the Universe). The fact is that the existence of any other > body alters the position of the centre of mass, and there exist a > unique centre of mass system for any determined starting body set. OK, let's stop right there and please reread again what I said. I am looking at a FIXED (16 ball) set of objects. The laws of conservation of momentum and energy describe the behavior of this system in a particular inertial reference frame, that where the center of mass of the system is stationary. However, the SAME laws of conservation of momentum and energy describe the behavior of this SAME system in any other reference frame that where the center of mass of this SAME system is moving at constant velocity with any magnitude and any direction. That statement is what the principle of relativity is about. I am not adding any other bodies to the system, nor am I considering the entire universe to be the system. > The > rule is then inside the system all, outside the system nothing (the > all can be only two bodies, or even a single one). Once the centre > of mass is determined, you cant put in or out any body. An important > theorem of the Newtonian mechanics is that the state of motion of the > centre of mass is independent from the interactions that can exist > among his bodies. But being the body set the whole Universe, its > centre of mass must remain at rest forever, at least in 1905 > Relativity where the absolute frame is out and doesnt exist any > exterior thing to move with respect to it. This is the point where we > are not in agreement, you think that in 1905 Relativity we can > consider the centre of mass moving with any uniform velocity with > respect to nothing, not realizing that this implies a re-introduction > of the Newtonian absolute frame (and all the derived relative and > apparent ones moving with all possible absolute uniform velocities). > Perhaps more difficult to see at a first glance is that the moving of > the centre of mass with respect to a non-massive entity implies a > coarse violation of Newtons laws in the context of 1905 Relativity, > where bodies with small mass usually has high velocity and the > inverse.> > But centre of mass inertial frames have implicitly a limitation, > > > they can be used only to describe the bodies belonging to its body set > > > (the bodies used when determining the centre of mass). Then, for the > > > persons that think (like you and Dono) that in 1905 Relativity any > > > inertial frame can be used to describe any body (an attribute that > > > only have the non-massive inertial frames already put out by 1905 > > > Einstein), I select one centre of mass inertial frame and require to > > > describe in it the trajectory of some body not belonging to its body > > > set (as is the case for the ECI and the Sun, not belonging the Sun to > > > the ECI body set). To describe the trajectory of that body not > > > belonging to the body set of a centre of mass inertial frame, a > > > violation of Newtons laws is necessary. > > > No sir, no violation of Newton's laws is required. > > Of course yes. The position of the centre of mass is determined by the > strict application of Newtons laws to all the bodies involved. When > you try to describe the movement of a new body maintaining the old > centre of mass at rest, you have no more an inertial frame, because > with the addition of the new body, a new centre of mass must be > computed to obtain a new inertial frame. Only in the new inertial > frame you can describe the trajectory of the new body without > violating Newtons laws. > Consider the ECI. As in any centre of mass inertial frame, you can > describe the trajectory of all the bodies involved with the strict > application of Newtons laws (a clock at a pole, a clock at the > equator, all the GPS satellites, etc.). But now you pretend to > describe the Suns trajectory in the ECI. What occurs? The new centre > of mass is now practically the Suns centre, the unique one that can > be used to describe the Suns trajectory without a violation of > Newtons laws (of course, the Suns trajectory is then a very tiny > circle around the new centre of mass). The trajectory of the ECI in > the new system is of course more or less the known one in the Solar > System. It is absolutely impossible to describe a moving Sun with > respect to an Earth at rest without a violation of Newtons laws. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |