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 15 Jul 2010 12:50 On Jul 15, 6:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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. That's true. The same infinite number of reference frames is independent of the set of bodies chosen. > 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. More or less. Even Newton recognized, though, that all inertial reference frames are equivalent as far as the physics is concerned, and that there is not one single frame from which other frames are derived. > 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. I'm sorry, but this last statement is simply incorrect. You've repeatedly confused the mention of rigid bodies in 1905 relativity with the frames in which those rigid bodies are observed. They are two separate things, not one. You've made this error repeatedly, over and over and over again, and you cannot seem to let go of it. > 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 18:56 On 15 jul, 11:50, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 6:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > That's true. The same infinite number of reference frames is > independent of the set of bodies chosen. > Inertial reference frames without relation with massive bodies belong to the Newtons view. To maintain them in the 1905 Einsteins one you need something more that a simple mention. > > 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. > > More or less. Even Newton recognized, though, that all inertial > reference frames are equivalent as far as the physics is concerned, > and that there is not one single frame from which other frames are > derived. > 1687 Newton doesnt say that there is not one single frame from which other frames are derived. He says precisely the contrary, that exists a single absolute and true frame from which other relative and apparent ones are derived. And that is precisely the absolute frame 1905 Einstein put out at the start of his new theory. > > 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. > > I'm sorry, but this last statement is simply incorrect. You've > repeatedly confused the mention of rigid bodies in 1905 relativity > with the frames in which those rigid bodies are observed. They are two > separate things, not one. You've made this error repeatedly, over and > over and over again, and you cannot seem to let go of it. > We are in agreement that this is the point where we have the more strong disagreement. Let us see if we can find the cause of it. Having put out the primary non-massive absolute frame (and derived ones with all possible absolute velocities), 1905 Einstein needs the massive bodies (the unique that remains) to determine inertial frames, introducing rigid bodies and with more detail rigid material lines for the coordinate axes, establishing a necessary relationship between systems of coordinates and massive bodies that you insist in not recognize. This is not a simple detail, it is the essence of the new 1905 Einsteins view, retiring the absolute (not related with massive bodies) from the Newtons view, and substituting it by the relative to massive body sets. Bodies not move more in a space and time not related with massive bodies, but in the space and time determined by a set of themselves. And here the difference between a reference system and the referenced body system disappears, being the same bodies that determine a specific space (and also a specific time!) the unique ones that can be referenced in the reference system determined by themselves. By the way, this is the cause why you cant describe the Suns trajectory in the ECI, it not belong to the ECI body set. As a final remark, more probably 1905 Einstein himself not has a clear idea about the consequences of the changes he is introducing, for example, he doesnt realize that rigid bodies are really non- necessary, as the fluid rotating Earth of his own example at the end of paragraph 4 put very clear. Here he introduces a centre of mass inertial frame without mentioning it explicitly, even being the rest state of the clock at a pole (a key point in his reasoning) a direct consequence of the centre of mass at rest. Once the absolute space and time are put out, the centre of mass inertial frame concept (already developed in the Newtonian mechanics long before 1905 Einstein) is more than sufficient to obtain a specific space and a specific time from any body set. Maybe the 1905 Einstein denotation stationary system for inertial frame has some relation with this, as the centre of mass must be considered at rest if the corresponding body set covers all the bodies involved. > > > > 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) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 10:26 On Jul 15, 5:56 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 15 jul, 11:50, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 6:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > 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. > > > That's true. The same infinite number of reference frames is > > independent of the set of bodies chosen. > > Inertial reference frames without relation with massive bodies belong > to the Newtons view. To maintain them in the 1905 Einsteins one you > need something more that a simple mention.> > 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. > > > More or less. Even Newton recognized, though, that all inertial > > reference frames are equivalent as far as the physics is concerned, > > and that there is not one single frame from which other frames are > > derived. > > 1687 Newton doesnt say that there is not one single frame from > which other frames are derived. He says precisely the contrary, that > exists a single absolute and true frame from which other relative and > apparent ones are derived. And that is precisely the absolute frame > 1905 Einstein put out at the start of his new theory.> > 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. > > > I'm sorry, but this last statement is simply incorrect. You've > > repeatedly confused the mention of rigid bodies in 1905 relativity > > with the frames in which those rigid bodies are observed. They are two > > separate things, not one. You've made this error repeatedly, over and > > over and over again, and you cannot seem to let go of it. > > We are in agreement that this is the point where we have the more > strong disagreement. Let us see if we can find the cause of it. > Having put out the primary non-massive absolute frame (and derived > ones with all possible absolute velocities), 1905 Einstein needs the > massive bodies (the unique that remains) to determine inertial frames, > introducing rigid bodies and with more detail rigid material lines for > the coordinate axes, Where does he say RIGID MATERIAL LINES for the coordinate axes? > establishing a necessary relationship between > systems of coordinates and massive bodies that you insist in not > recognize. This is not a simple detail, it is the essence of the new > 1905 Einsteins view, retiring the absolute (not related with massive > bodies) from the Newtons view, and substituting it by the relative to > massive body sets. Bodies not move more in a space and time not > related with massive bodies, but in the space and time determined by a > set of themselves. And here the difference between a reference system > and the referenced body system disappears, being the same bodies that > determine a specific space (and also a specific time!) the unique > ones that can be referenced in the reference system determined by > themselves. By the way, this is the cause why you cant describe the > Suns trajectory in the ECI, it not belong to the ECI body set. > As a final remark, more probably 1905 Einstein himself not has a clear > idea about the consequences of the changes he is introducing, for > example, he doesnt realize that rigid bodies are really non- > necessary, as the fluid rotating Earth of his own example at the end > of paragraph 4 put very clear. Here he introduces a centre of mass > inertial frame without mentioning it explicitly, even being the rest > state of the clock at a pole (a key point in his reasoning) a direct > consequence of the centre of mass at rest. Once the absolute space and > time are put out, the centre of mass inertial frame concept (already > developed in the Newtonian mechanics long before 1905 Einstein) is > more than sufficient to obtain a specific space and a specific time > from any body set. Maybe the 1905 Einstein denotation stationary > system for inertial frame has some relation with this, as the centre > of mass must be considered at rest if the corresponding body set > covers all the bodies involved. > > > > > > 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) > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Dono. on 16 Jul 2010 10:32 On Jul 14, 12:56 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 14 jul, 08:33, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 4:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > Describe the Suns > > > trajectory in the ECI. > > > 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. > putting very clear that the > equivalence among inertial frames doesnt hold true in 1905 > Relativity. > ....only in your idiotic mind
From: valls on 16 Jul 2010 14:25
On 16 jul, 09:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 5:56 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 jul, 11:50, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 6:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > That's true. The same infinite number of reference frames is > > > independent of the set of bodies chosen. > > > Inertial reference frames without relation with massive bodies belong > > to the Newtons view. To maintain them in the 1905 Einsteins one you > > need something more that a simple mention.> > 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. > > > > More or less. Even Newton recognized, though, that all inertial > > > reference frames are equivalent as far as the physics is concerned, > > > and that there is not one single frame from which other frames are > > > derived. > > > 1687 Newton doesnt say that there is not one single frame from > > which other frames are derived. He says precisely the contrary, that > > exists a single absolute and true frame from which other relative and > > apparent ones are derived. And that is precisely the absolute frame > > 1905 Einstein put out at the start of his new theory.> > 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. > > > > I'm sorry, but this last statement is simply incorrect. You've > > > repeatedly confused the mention of rigid bodies in 1905 relativity > > > with the frames in which those rigid bodies are observed. They are two > > > separate things, not one. You've made this error repeatedly, over and > > > over and over again, and you cannot seem to let go of it. > > > We are in agreement that this is the point where we have the more > > strong disagreement. Let us see if we can find the cause of it. > > Having put out the primary non-massive absolute frame (and derived > > ones with all possible absolute velocities), 1905 Einstein needs the > > massive bodies (the unique that remains) to determine inertial frames, > > introducing rigid bodies and with more detail rigid material lines for > > the coordinate axes, > > Where does he say RIGID MATERIAL LINES for the coordinate axes? > At the beginning of paragraph 3 in his 30Jun1905 paper: [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. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel.] RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |