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: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 06:53 <valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:441d0809-6f8a-48e5-8008-de28e2e4c403(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... 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 > > > > Newton�s laws (Tycho Brahe�s work precedes Newton�s one). > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > To describe > > > > the Sun�s 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, =================================== Einstein did not denote any inertial frames in 1905, he was too dumb to know what they are.
From: valls on 19 Jul 2010 08:24 On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > wrote in messagenews: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. > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken > into account when performing experiments or analysing observations. > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper > that introduced relativity. The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact inertial frame, the ECI. And we have gravity here, inside the ECI determining the satellite orbits (affecting also clock running) and outside the ECI determining the Earths orbit around the Sun. Where do you see here a uniform velocity movement in straight line? Same remark about the Solar System (the more exact inertial frame known by men) that is moving around the Galaxy following a non-straight line trajectory. See with care. You dont need an external uniform velocity for a system to be an inertial one. I am using the 1905 Einstein definition about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. You only need a sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a uniform one. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 09:13 On Jul 19, 10:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > wrote in messagenews: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. > > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of > > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of > > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to > > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken > > into account when performing experiments or analysing observations. > > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper > > that introduced relativity. > > The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely > the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact inertial > frame, the ECI. Wrong ( in terms of SR ) .. from GR perspective, as the earth is in free-fall, it is equivalent to an inertial frame .. but only locally. Once you put the sun etc in the picture, then it is not. > And we have gravity here, inside the ECI determining > the satellite orbits (affecting also clock running) and outside the > ECI determining the Earths orbit around the Sun. Where do you see > here a uniform velocity movement in straight line? Nowhere .. if you view from the 'outside' .. its not inertial. But locally we can treat the ECI as inertial in GR. > Same remark about > the Solar System (the more exact inertial frame known by men) that is > moving around the Galaxy following a non-straight line trajectory. > See with care. You dont need an external uniform velocity for a > system to be an inertial one. You do > I am using the 1905 Einstein definition > about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. They don't in an accelerating system. > You only need a > sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of > the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a > uniform one. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: oriel36 on 19 Jul 2010 09:17 On Jul 19, 1:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: You dont need an external uniform velocity for a > system to be an inertial one. I am using the 1905 Einstein definition > about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. You only need a > sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of > the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a > uniform one. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) Not even close ! The framework Newton used was Flamsteed's equatorial coordinate system which uses a perspective where the 'fixed stars' make shorter and shorter circuits - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwSlkJG8gTU To make a very,very long and complicated story very short,Flamsteed assigned a dynamical cause to stellar circumpolar motion in 'sidereal time' and this is a common feature from Newton right to the present,even Albert is expressing it without knowing it - "Now if we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a result which is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia. So that if we adhere to this law we must refer these motions only to systems of co-ordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle. A system of co-ordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is called a Galileian system of co-ordinates. The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of co-ordinates." http://bartelby.org/173/4.html How do you explain to somebody who does not want to listen that the 'fixed stars' framework which Newton used to bridge absolute/relative space and motion is not based on a fractional year of 365.24 days but on the 365/366 day calendar system ?.Flamsteed's assumption for daily rotation may look right but it isn't and although the calendar based Ra/Dec system is excellent for predicting eclipses and astronomical events on specific calendar dates,it cannot be used as a base for the Earth's daily and orbital motions. It is as though everybody wants to circle the error without actually dealing with it or worse making the error the basis of a giant wordplay .
From: Dono. on 19 Jul 2010 09:36
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 |