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: valls on 29 Jul 2010 08:34 On 23 jul, 12:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:16 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > On 22 jul, 14:06, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm going to top-poste because I think the discussion is well off the > rails somewhere, and I'm going to try to go back to some basics. > Very good! Total agreement in this point. > In Newtonian mechanics AND in 1905 relativity, an inertial reference > frame is one in which the laws of physics hold true. > I think that it is not a good idea from your part to start assuming that the inertial frame concept is the same in Newtonian mechanics AND 1905 Relativity. Read the title of this thread: The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity. The topic here is precisely the changes in the inertial frame concept owed to the development of the new 1905 Relativity theory. I am referring here to the original 1905 theory, not taking into account the changes introduced in it after 1905. > What this means is that, given a system of bodies, whether that system > is isolated or not, you can account for the motions (and in > particular, the accelerations) of the bodies as the effect of known > interactions, either internal to the system or reaching across the > boundary of the system. > No, Newtonian mechanics doesnt start at all with a system of bodies and the interactions among them, but all the contrary. It starts putting out ALL the interacting bodies, conceiving then an absolute space and an absolute time with no relation at all with the bodies. After that, the Newtons laws for the bodies are established, considering that they hold good in that absolute reference frame, denoted the unique absolute and true inertial frame. After that, the Newtonian laws are proved valid in infinite denoted relative and apparent inertial frames moving with all possible absolute uniform velocities with respect to the absolute one, over the base to consider the same absolute time in all of them. 1905 Relativity starts putting out the absolute frame, identifying then systems of co-ordinates with rigid bodies, denoting stationary systems of co-ordinates (three rigid material lines) in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (inertial frames). A new relative time concept is developed, having each stationary system (inertial frame) its own time. I take the stationary system managed in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper (our rotating Earth, today denoted ECI), as the reference to any thing related with the inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity. > What the inertial frame does NOT imply is that any one of the bodies > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > What it also does NOT imply is that the center of mass of the bodies > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > Almost all your last assertions are ambiguous ones if you do not distinguish between Newtonian mechanics and 1905 Relativity with respect to the inertial frame concept. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: oriel36 on 29 Jul 2010 10:35 On Jul 29, 1:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 23 jul, 12:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 11:16 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 22 jul, 14:06, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to top-poste because I think the discussion is well off the > > rails somewhere, and I'm going to try to go back to some basics. > > Very good! Total agreement in this point.> In Newtonian mechanics AND in 1905 relativity, an inertial reference > > frame is one in which the laws of physics hold true. > > I think that it is not a good idea from your part to start assuming > that the inertial frame concept is the same in Newtonian mechanics AND > 1905 Relativity. Oh this is funny !,Newton's use of the 'fixed stars' framework or the stellar circumpolar Ra/Dec framework is inherently homocentric meaning that an observer looking into the celestial arena sees every point is the valid center as long he assumes 'sidereal time' reasoning.The empirical empire,at least the one that began with Newton,has at its core this fatal geometric flaw that cannot be reconciled with observations try as it may to bridge the divide between observation and interpretation,specifically,the use of the 'sidereal time' value as a starting point for the Earth's daily and orbital dynamics. Read the title of this thread: The inertial frame > concept in 1905 Relativity. The topic here is precisely the changes > in the inertial frame concept owed to the development of the new 1905 > Relativity theory. I am referring here to the original 1905 theory, > not taking into account the changes introduced in it after 1905.> What this means is that, given a system of bodies, whether that system > > is isolated or not, you can account for the motions (and in > > particular, the accelerations) of the bodies as the effect of known > > interactions, either internal to the system or reaching across the > > boundary of the system. > > No, Newtonian mechanics doesnt start at all with a system of bodies > and the interactions among them, but all the contrary. It starts > putting out ALL the interacting bodies, conceiving then an absolute > space and an absolute time with no relation at all with the bodies. Ah,you will never get it and through no fault of your own,what Newton was actually doing is incredibly interesting for all the wrong reasons but it is nothing like the paper thin rendition assigned to him and his scheme via relativity.Want to see what absolute space and motion looks like ? ,didn't think you would be here it is anyway - http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernicus.gif Want to see what relative space and motion looks like ?,again, didn't think so but here it is - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg Now it gets to be fun and I actually mean fun and not those wound up wordplays that all engage in here ,Newton was never that dull - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton Without spelling it out entirely,the guys today think Kepler's observations of Mars using the stellar background is geocentric and like Isaac thought,if you drop the Sun in the center of the diagram the retrograde loops disappear hence - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Newton Now absolute/relative time is a separate issue relating to a common stellar circumpolar framework for absolute/relative space and motion based on 'sidereal time' and its calendar based predictive convenience but readers ,at least those who have the courage to engage Newton's original perspective of the difference between apparent and actual motions,will be rewarded a thousand times over if they treat Newton's resolution for retrogrades as illegal,for want of a better word,as retrogrades are simple an illusion caused by the Earth's own motion - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html C'mon guys,the 21st century beckons rather than remaining stuck in a 20th century wordplay whereas the real action is back with Newton/ Flamsteed. > After that, the Newtons laws for the bodies are established, > considering that they hold good in that absolute reference frame, > denoted the unique absolute and true inertial frame. After that, the > Newtonian laws are proved valid in infinite denoted relative and > apparent inertial frames moving with all possible absolute uniform > velocities with respect to the absolute one, over the base to consider > the same absolute time in all of them. > 1905 Relativity starts putting out the absolute frame, identifying > then systems of co-ordinates with rigid bodies, denoting stationary > systems of co-ordinates (three rigid material lines) in which the > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (inertial frames). A new > relative time concept is developed, having each stationary system > (inertial frame) its own time. I take the stationary system managed in > the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einsteins > paper (our rotating Earth, today denoted ECI), as the reference to any > thing related with the inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity. > > > What the inertial frame does NOT imply is that any one of the bodies > > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > > What it also does NOT imply is that the center of mass of the bodies > > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > > Almost all your last assertions are ambiguous ones if you do not > distinguish between Newtonian mechanics and 1905 Relativity with > respect to the inertial frame concept. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 31 Jul 2010 14:49 On Jul 29, 7:34 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 23 jul, 12:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 11:16 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 22 jul, 14:06, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to top-poste because I think the discussion is well off the > > rails somewhere, and I'm going to try to go back to some basics. > > Very good! Total agreement in this point.> In Newtonian mechanics AND in 1905 relativity, an inertial reference > > frame is one in which the laws of physics hold true. > > I think that it is not a good idea from your part to start assuming > that the inertial frame concept is the same in Newtonian mechanics AND > 1905 Relativity. Read the title of this thread: The inertial frame > concept in 1905 Relativity. The topic here is precisely the changes > in the inertial frame concept owed to the development of the new 1905 > Relativity theory. I am referring here to the original 1905 theory, > not taking into account the changes introduced in it after 1905. I'm sorry, but the assertion that they are DIFFERENT is yours and yours alone, and that is what has been pointed out to you by several people. > What this means is that, given a system of bodies, whether that system > > is isolated or not, you can account for the motions (and in > > particular, the accelerations) of the bodies as the effect of known > > interactions, either internal to the system or reaching across the > > boundary of the system. > > No, Newtonian mechanics doesnt start at all with a system of bodies > and the interactions among them, but all the contrary. It starts > putting out ALL the interacting bodies, conceiving then an absolute > space and an absolute time with no relation at all with the bodies. > After that, the Newtons laws for the bodies are established, > considering that they hold good in that absolute reference frame, > denoted the unique absolute and true inertial frame. After that, the > Newtonian laws are proved valid in infinite denoted relative and > apparent inertial frames moving with all possible absolute uniform > velocities with respect to the absolute one, over the base to consider > the same absolute time in all of them. No, sir. That is incorrect. > 1905 Relativity starts putting out the absolute frame, identifying > then systems of co-ordinates with rigid bodies, denoting stationary > systems of co-ordinates (three rigid material lines) in which the > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (inertial frames). A new > relative time concept is developed, having each stationary system > (inertial frame) its own time. I take the stationary system managed in > the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einsteins > paper (our rotating Earth, today denoted ECI), as the reference to any > thing related with the inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity. > > > What the inertial frame does NOT imply is that any one of the bodies > > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > > What it also does NOT imply is that the center of mass of the bodies > > in the system need be either stationary or bearing constant velocity. > > Almost all your last assertions are ambiguous ones if you do not > distinguish between Newtonian mechanics and 1905 Relativity with > respect to the inertial frame concept. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 2 Aug 2010 08:37 On 31 jul, 13:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 7:34 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 23 jul, 12:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 11:16 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 22 jul, 14:06, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm going to top-poste because I think the discussion is well off the > > > rails somewhere, and I'm going to try to go back to some basics. > > > Very good! Total agreement in this point.> In Newtonian mechanics AND in 1905 relativity, an inertial reference > > > frame is one in which the laws of physics hold true. > > > I think that it is not a good idea from your part to start assuming > > that the inertial frame concept is the same in Newtonian mechanics AND > > 1905 Relativity. Read the title of this thread: The inertial frame > > concept in 1905 Relativity. The topic here is precisely the changes > > in the inertial frame concept owed to the development of the new 1905 > > Relativity theory. I am referring here to the original 1905 theory, > > not taking into account the changes introduced in it after 1905. > > I'm sorry, but the assertion that they are DIFFERENT is yours and > yours alone, and that is what has been pointed out to you by several > people. > No, I am not the unique asserting that the inertial frame concept in Newtonian mechanics and 1905 Relativity are different, I am simply following 1905 Einstein, reading what he writes. See at the end of the introduction and beginning of paragraph 1 in the 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper (between [ ]): [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 empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. 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. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters. I.KINEMATICAL PART 1. Definition of Simultaneity Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system. ] As you see, 1905 Einstein starts putting appart the Newtonian absolute frame, identifies rigid bodies with systems of co-ordinates (rigid material lines at the beginning of paragraph 3), and denotes stationary the systems of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (inertial frames). The relationship between inertial frames and bodies is established very clearly. In Newtonian mechanics, all inertial frames have no relation at all with bodies (the absolute and true one, and the relative and apparent ones derived from it). > > > > What this means is that, given a system of bodies, whether that system > > > is isolated or not, you can account for the motions (and in > > > particular, the accelerations) of the bodies as the effect of known > > > interactions, either internal to the system or reaching across the > > > boundary of the system. > > > No, Newtonian mechanics doesnt start at all with a system of bodies > > and the interactions among them, but all the contrary. It starts > > putting out ALL the interacting bodies, conceiving then an absolute > > space and an absolute time with no relation at all with the bodies. > > After that, the Newtons laws for the bodies are established, > > considering that they hold good in that absolute reference frame, > > denoted the unique absolute and true inertial frame. After that, the > > Newtonian laws are proved valid in infinite denoted relative and > > apparent inertial frames moving with all possible absolute uniform > > velocities with respect to the absolute one, over the base to consider > > the same absolute time in all of them. > > No, sir. That is incorrect. > I am only describing what can be read in 1687 Newtons Principia .. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Inertial on 2 Aug 2010 08:52
wrote in message news:2ef79fa4-353c-449d-a9a2-9f819695b2fa(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >On 31 jul, 13:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 29, 7:34 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: >> I am referring here to the original 1905 theory, > > not taking into account the changes introduced in it after 1905. > > I'm sorry, but the assertion that they are DIFFERENT is yours and > yours alone, and that is what has been pointed out to you by several > people. > >No, I am not the unique asserting that the inertial frame concept in >Newtonian mechanics and 1905 Relativity are different, That is not what PD said. He said you claiming that 1905 and post-1905 relativity are different is your claim alone. Many of your claims about 1905 relativity are also yours alone and are not found in the paper itself ... only in your misunderstanding of it. |