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: PD on 14 Jul 2010 18:03 On Jul 14, 4:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among > > > all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905 > > > Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the > > > trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them? > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > In 1905 relativity, as it also was before this paper AND AFTER this > > paper, the answer is this: > > All n bodies would have their trajectories described in any inertial > > reference frame, and there an infinite number of inertial reference > > frames for any such system. > > Infinite coordinate systems is dumb. Really? How many rational numbers are there, Mitch? Is it dumb that there's an infinite number of those too? > > Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 15 Jul 2010 00:00 BURT a �crit : > On Jul 14, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: >> >>> Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among >>> all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905 >>> Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the >>> trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them? >>> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >> In 1905 relativity, as it also was before this paper AND AFTER this >> paper, the answer is this: >> All n bodies would have their trajectories described in any inertial >> reference frame, and there an infinite number of inertial reference >> frames for any such system. > > Infinite coordinate systems is dumb. Not at all, but Mitch Raemsch is dumb for sure.
From: valls on 15 Jul 2010 07:18 On 14 jul, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among > > all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905 > > Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the > > trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them? > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > In 1905 relativity, as it also was before this paper AND AFTER this > paper, the answer is this: > All n bodies would have their trajectories described in any inertial > reference frame, and there an infinite number of inertial reference > frames for any such system. You give an answer totally independent from my starting Let be n bodies. As they can be all the existing ones, that implies that your infinite inertial frames are the same of the Newtons view, based in the primary absolute frame and the relative ones depending on it (moving with all possible absolute uniform velocities), all of them without relation with massive bodies. This is more than sufficient to support that your answer is not valid in 1905 Relativity where all that non-massive inertial frames are put out. Suppose that the Sun is one of the n bodies. Let us take the inertial frame (stationary system) that 1905 Einstein manage at the end of paragraph 4 in his 30Jun1905 paper (the denoted today ECI, a centre of mass one). You say that All n bodies would have their trajectories described in any inertial reference frame. Describe then the Suns trajectory in the ECI. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 15 Jul 2010 07:24 On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > wrote in messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not close) centre of mass inertial > > WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > Please. . try to get the basics right > > [snip rest of nonsense unread] Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 15 Jul 2010 09:32
<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > wrote in > messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not �close�) centre of mass inertial > > WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > Please. . try to get the basics right > > [snip rest of nonsense unread] Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) ================================================ Then give us a real example of what you accept as a bright green flying elephant slapping down dominoes in Havana. |