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 19 Jul 2010 16:20
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
> > > > > > > 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, 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?
From: valls on 19 Jul 2010 19:03
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
> > > > > > > > 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, 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. 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 Newton’s laws is necessary.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 19:13
On Jul 20, 4:53 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> Read by yourself the 1905 text

I have. You clearly misinterpret it and read into it things that are
not there.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 19:16
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
> > > > > > > > > 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, 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.
From: Dono. on 19 Jul 2010 19:37
On Jul 19, 12:17 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
> > > > > > > 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, 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.
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

He didn't need to, his calculations were good enough. Why don't you
read the reference I sent you, old fart?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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