The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 8 Jul 2010 09:38 On 7 jul, 17:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 5:05 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 jul, 09:33, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 9:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 2 jul, 09:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 2, 6:07 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 jul, 10:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 3:31 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 30 jun, 15:13, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu says... > > > > > > > > > > >In a recent thread we established that > > > > > > > > > > Centre of mass inertial frames are the unique ones in 1905 > > > > > > > > > >Relativity > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in the development of relativity that in any > > > > > > > > > way depends on a frame being defined by a center of mass. That's > > > > > > > > > completely barking up the wrong tree. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Daryl McCullough > > > > > > > > > Ithaca, NY > > > > > > > > > I will answer you with the same initial post of the referred thread: > > > > > > > > [Let be any body set with a material point modelling each one. If we > > > > > > > > want to describe the movements of the bodies in an inertial frame, we > > > > > > > > have a unique alternative: to use the centre of mass inertial frame > > > > > > > > corresponding to that body set. Once the Newtons absolute frame is > > > > > > > > rejected by 1905 Einstein (and then rejected also all the others > > > > > > > > moving with any uniform velocity with respect to it), remain only the > > > > > > > > bodies themselves to determine inertial frames.] > > > > > > > > Explain to us how can you determine an inertial frame once the > > > > > > > > absolute Newtonian one is rejected by 1905 Einstein(and with it all > > > > > > > > the others imaginary derived ones with all possible uniform velocities > > > > > > > > with respect to it). > > > > > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > > > > > Inertial frames are *defined* by the fact that the laws of dynamics > > > > > > > retain their form in such frames. The center of mass frame of a system > > > > > > > of mutually interacting bodies is such an inertial frame (provided > > > > > > > that there is no measurably significant interaction with bodies > > > > > > > external to this system), but it is also true that ANY OTHER FRAME > > > > > > > moving at constant velocity with respect to the center of mass frame > > > > > > > also satisfies this requirement. > > > > > > > If you have TWO inertial frames (real massive ones, not the imaginary > > > > > > massless ones rejected by 1905 Einstein), then they can't be never > > > > > > moving at a uniform velocity one with respect to the other (at least > > > > > > some gravitational attraction must be present always). > > > > > > Don't be ridulous. Your coffee cup and the table is sitting on have a > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (zero), even though there > > > > > is a gravitational attraction. An elevator and the 3rd floor move at > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (nonzero), even though > > > > > there is a gravitational attraction present. Just because there is a > > > > > gravitational attraction present doesn't remove the presence of OTHER > > > > > forces which can put two objects in equilibrium, either static or > > > > > nonstatic. > > > > > I am not rejecting at all Nature forces of any kind. The coffee cup > > > > and the table you refer are both moving with a non-zero gravitational > > > > centripetal acceleration in a circular path in the GPS ECI, because I > > > > dont stay in a pole (as the clock at the equator in the example at > > > > the end of paragraph 4 in the 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper). They cant > > > > be considered then inertial frames. Yes, they are two entities with a > > > > uniform zero relative velocity, but they are NOT two inertial frames. > > > > The same remark about your elevator and floor. Only in the Newtonian > > > > view you can derive a different inertial frame from another referring > > > > a uniform velocity between them (the way the infinite imaginary > > > > inertial frames moving with all possible uniform velocities with > > > > respect to the imaginary absolute one are put in existence). In 1905 > > > > Relativity, even if you can obtain two entities moving with a relative > > > > uniform velocity compatible with Nature laws, they cant be inertial > > > > frames, because even being them the unique entities considered by you, > > > > the centre of mass inertial system of all the bodies involved continue > > > > being the UNIQUE possible inertial frame. > > > > And as has been repeated to you over and over again, this is simply > > > wrong. > > > The center of mass frame is certainly unique. It just isn't the only > > > inertial frame in the system. > > > Once you have the unique centre of mass inertial frame corresponding > > to some determined body set, what denote you by the system? For me, > > the centre of mass inertial frame and the system is one and the same > > thing. > > No, a system is a collection of interacting physical entities. A > reference frame is the coordinate system in which the coordinates of > those entities have a particular values. > > For example, a physical system may include a proton, a neutron and an > electron, interacting with each other by various interactions. That > system may be viewed by any number of reference frames, and in each > reference frame, the coordinates as a function of time of each of the > bodies in the system will have values that are unique to that frame. > The coordinates are not part of the system, nor is the reference > frame. > > For example, this system can be viewed from the inertial reference > frame where the center of mass of these objects is zero. This very > same system can be viewed from an inertial reference system where the > center of mass of these objects is moving at 12,323 m/s along the z > axis of the first reference frame. The laws of physics will be > identical in both those reference frames. > > This is all FRESHMAN stuff, on what constitutes a physical system and > what a reference frame is. If this is all new to you, then please > revisit some freshman materials. > Remember that the topic in this thread is 1905 Relativity. I will answer your post on that historical context. In the Newtonian view exists a primary unique absolute inertial frame, the one with absolute space and time. From that frame, relative inertial frames can be derived, moving with all possible uniform velocities with respect to the absolute one. This covers all possible inertial frames, all of them without any relation at all with massive bodies. In 1905 Relativity the things are completely different, the theory starts putting out the absolute frame (and with it then also all the other depending on it), remaining then only the massive bodies themselves to determine inertial frames. 1905 Einstein identifies system of coordinates with rigid bodies, denoting stationary system a one where the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. We cant have then in 1905 Relativity systems of coordinates without massive bodies. By other part, it was known in Newtonian mechanics (long before 1905 Einstein) that any body set determines a unique centre of mass (c-o-m) inertial frame, with that c-o-m considered at rest. In your example, the proton, the neutron and the electron determine a unique c-o-m inertial frame (see the 1913 Bohr atom model). From where do you take your second inertial frame to put the c-o-m moving at 12, 323 m/s in it? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 8 Jul 2010 10:35 On 5 jul, 12:11, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > If you have TWO inertial frames (real massive ones, not the imaginary > > massless ones rejected by 1905 Einstein), then they can't be never > > moving at a uniform velocity one with respect to the other (at least > > some gravitational attraction must be present always). > > But in practice, such gravitational attraction s can be completely negligible. > Such as for particle interactions in accelerators here on earth. > > Moreover, in an analysis using SR one must IGNORE gravitation. As Einstein > showed during 1909-1915, there is no simple generalization of gravity to SR, one > needs full GR. > > Physics is about modeling the world. It often makes sense to ignore negligible > interactions, even though we know they are present. So in particle physics we > ignore the gravity of the earth, even though we know it is present -- it is > billions of times smaller than our measurement resolutions, so the complexity of > including it would be completely wasted effort. > Even neglecting the gravitational force between two (or more) massive inertial frames, you have always a unique inertial frame, the one corresponding to the set of all bodies involved. Consider for example the Solar System inertial frame and the ECI one. Put now the ECI at a huge distance from the Sun as great as you want. No matter how huge it can be, you never can change the basic fact that you remain having a unique inertial frame, the Solar System one with the ECI belonging to it, even with the centre of mass almost at the same place. And you will never can put the Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest. > Tom Roberts RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 8 Jul 2010 10:48 On Jul 8, 7:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > And you > will never can put the Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest. > What sort of idiot are you? If you use the Earth as a frame of reference, the Sun is moving. Look up in the sky. Has the cuban heat taken away your capability to observe?
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 11:31 On Jul 8, 8:38 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 7 jul, 17:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:05 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 6 jul, 09:33, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > On 2 jul, 09:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 6:07 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1 jul, 10:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 3:31 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 30 jun, 15:13, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu says... > > > > > > > > > > > >In a recent thread we established that > > > > > > > > > > > Centre of mass inertial frames are the unique ones in 1905 > > > > > > > > > > >Relativity > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in the development of relativity that in any > > > > > > > > > > way depends on a frame being defined by a center of mass. That's > > > > > > > > > > completely barking up the wrong tree. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Daryl McCullough > > > > > > > > > > Ithaca, NY > > > > > > > > > > I will answer you with the same initial post of the referred thread: > > > > > > > > > [Let be any body set with a material point modelling each one. If we > > > > > > > > > want to describe the movements of the bodies in an inertial frame, we > > > > > > > > > have a unique alternative: to use the centre of mass inertial frame > > > > > > > > > corresponding to that body set. Once the Newtons absolute frame is > > > > > > > > > rejected by 1905 Einstein (and then rejected also all the others > > > > > > > > > moving with any uniform velocity with respect to it), remain only the > > > > > > > > > bodies themselves to determine inertial frames.] > > > > > > > > > Explain to us how can you determine an inertial frame once the > > > > > > > > > absolute Newtonian one is rejected by 1905 Einstein(and with it all > > > > > > > > > the others imaginary derived ones with all possible uniform velocities > > > > > > > > > with respect to it). > > > > > > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > > > > > > Inertial frames are *defined* by the fact that the laws of dynamics > > > > > > > > retain their form in such frames. The center of mass frame of a system > > > > > > > > of mutually interacting bodies is such an inertial frame (provided > > > > > > > > that there is no measurably significant interaction with bodies > > > > > > > > external to this system), but it is also true that ANY OTHER FRAME > > > > > > > > moving at constant velocity with respect to the center of mass frame > > > > > > > > also satisfies this requirement. > > > > > > > > If you have TWO inertial frames (real massive ones, not the imaginary > > > > > > > massless ones rejected by 1905 Einstein), then they can't be never > > > > > > > moving at a uniform velocity one with respect to the other (at least > > > > > > > some gravitational attraction must be present always). > > > > > > > Don't be ridulous. Your coffee cup and the table is sitting on have a > > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (zero), even though there > > > > > > is a gravitational attraction. An elevator and the 3rd floor move at > > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (nonzero), even though > > > > > > there is a gravitational attraction present. Just because there is a > > > > > > gravitational attraction present doesn't remove the presence of OTHER > > > > > > forces which can put two objects in equilibrium, either static or > > > > > > nonstatic. > > > > > > I am not rejecting at all Nature forces of any kind. The coffee cup > > > > > and the table you refer are both moving with a non-zero gravitational > > > > > centripetal acceleration in a circular path in the GPS ECI, because I > > > > > dont stay in a pole (as the clock at the equator in the example at > > > > > the end of paragraph 4 in the 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper). They cant > > > > > be considered then inertial frames. Yes, they are two entities with a > > > > > uniform zero relative velocity, but they are NOT two inertial frames. > > > > > The same remark about your elevator and floor. Only in the Newtonian > > > > > view you can derive a different inertial frame from another referring > > > > > a uniform velocity between them (the way the infinite imaginary > > > > > inertial frames moving with all possible uniform velocities with > > > > > respect to the imaginary absolute one are put in existence). In 1905 > > > > > Relativity, even if you can obtain two entities moving with a relative > > > > > uniform velocity compatible with Nature laws, they cant be inertial > > > > > frames, because even being them the unique entities considered by you, > > > > > the centre of mass inertial system of all the bodies involved continue > > > > > being the UNIQUE possible inertial frame. > > > > > And as has been repeated to you over and over again, this is simply > > > > wrong. > > > > The center of mass frame is certainly unique. It just isn't the only > > > > inertial frame in the system. > > > > Once you have the unique centre of mass inertial frame corresponding > > > to some determined body set, what denote you by the system? For me, > > > the centre of mass inertial frame and the system is one and the same > > > thing. > > > No, a system is a collection of interacting physical entities. A > > reference frame is the coordinate system in which the coordinates of > > those entities have a particular values. > > > For example, a physical system may include a proton, a neutron and an > > electron, interacting with each other by various interactions. That > > system may be viewed by any number of reference frames, and in each > > reference frame, the coordinates as a function of time of each of the > > bodies in the system will have values that are unique to that frame. > > The coordinates are not part of the system, nor is the reference > > frame. > > > For example, this system can be viewed from the inertial reference > > frame where the center of mass of these objects is zero. This very > > same system can be viewed from an inertial reference system where the > > center of mass of these objects is moving at 12,323 m/s along the z > > axis of the first reference frame. The laws of physics will be > > identical in both those reference frames. > > > This is all FRESHMAN stuff, on what constitutes a physical system and > > what a reference frame is. If this is all new to you, then please > > revisit some freshman materials. > > Remember that the topic in this thread is 1905 Relativity. I will > answer your post on that historical context. > In the Newtonian view exists a primary unique absolute inertial frame, > the one with absolute space and time. From that frame, relative > inertial frames can be derived, moving with all possible uniform > velocities with respect to the absolute one. This covers all possible > inertial frames, all of them without any relation at all with massive > bodies. > In 1905 Relativity the things are completely different, the theory > starts putting out the absolute frame (and with it then also all the > other depending on it), remaining then only the massive bodies > themselves to determine inertial frames. And that is wrong, as a NUMBER of people have pointed out to you. You have refused to let go of that misapprehension. Since you've done that, there's no real point to continue. > 1905 Einstein identifies > system of coordinates with rigid bodies, denoting stationary system > a one where the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. We cant > have then in 1905 Relativity systems of coordinates without massive > bodies. By other part, it was known in Newtonian mechanics (long > before 1905 Einstein) that any body set determines a unique centre of > mass (c-o-m) inertial frame, with that c-o-m considered at rest. > In your example, the proton, the neutron and the electron determine a > unique c-o-m inertial frame (see the 1913 Bohr atom model). From where > do you take your second inertial frame to put the c-o-m moving at 12, > 323 m/s in it? > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: valls on 8 Jul 2010 13:46
On 8 jul, 10:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:38 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 jul, 17:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 5:05 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 6 jul, 09:33, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 2 jul, 09:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 6:07 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1 jul, 10:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 3:31 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 30 jun, 15:13, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu says... > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a recent thread we established that > > > > > > > > > > > > Centre of mass inertial frames are the unique ones in 1905 > > > > > > > > > > > >Relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in the development of relativity that in any > > > > > > > > > > > way depends on a frame being defined by a center of mass. That's > > > > > > > > > > > completely barking up the wrong tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Daryl McCullough > > > > > > > > > > > Ithaca, NY > > > > > > > > > > > I will answer you with the same initial post of the referred thread: > > > > > > > > > > [Let be any body set with a material point modelling each one. If we > > > > > > > > > > want to describe the movements of the bodies in an inertial frame, we > > > > > > > > > > have a unique alternative: to use the centre of mass inertial frame > > > > > > > > > > corresponding to that body set. Once the Newtons absolute frame is > > > > > > > > > > rejected by 1905 Einstein (and then rejected also all the others > > > > > > > > > > moving with any uniform velocity with respect to it), remain only the > > > > > > > > > > bodies themselves to determine inertial frames.] > > > > > > > > > > Explain to us how can you determine an inertial frame once the > > > > > > > > > > absolute Newtonian one is rejected by 1905 Einstein(and with it all > > > > > > > > > > the others imaginary derived ones with all possible uniform velocities > > > > > > > > > > with respect to it). > > > > > > > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > > > > > > > Inertial frames are *defined* by the fact that the laws of dynamics > > > > > > > > > retain their form in such frames. The center of mass frame of a system > > > > > > > > > of mutually interacting bodies is such an inertial frame (provided > > > > > > > > > that there is no measurably significant interaction with bodies > > > > > > > > > external to this system), but it is also true that ANY OTHER FRAME > > > > > > > > > moving at constant velocity with respect to the center of mass frame > > > > > > > > > also satisfies this requirement. > > > > > > > > > If you have TWO inertial frames (real massive ones, not the imaginary > > > > > > > > massless ones rejected by 1905 Einstein), then they can't be never > > > > > > > > moving at a uniform velocity one with respect to the other (at least > > > > > > > > some gravitational attraction must be present always). > > > > > > > > Don't be ridulous. Your coffee cup and the table is sitting on have a > > > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (zero), even though there > > > > > > > is a gravitational attraction. An elevator and the 3rd floor move at > > > > > > > uniform velocity with respect to each other (nonzero), even though > > > > > > > there is a gravitational attraction present. Just because there is a > > > > > > > gravitational attraction present doesn't remove the presence of OTHER > > > > > > > forces which can put two objects in equilibrium, either static or > > > > > > > nonstatic. > > > > > > > I am not rejecting at all Nature forces of any kind. The coffee cup > > > > > > and the table you refer are both moving with a non-zero gravitational > > > > > > centripetal acceleration in a circular path in the GPS ECI, because I > > > > > > dont stay in a pole (as the clock at the equator in the example at > > > > > > the end of paragraph 4 in the 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper). They cant > > > > > > be considered then inertial frames. Yes, they are two entities with a > > > > > > uniform zero relative velocity, but they are NOT two inertial frames. > > > > > > The same remark about your elevator and floor. Only in the Newtonian > > > > > > view you can derive a different inertial frame from another referring > > > > > > a uniform velocity between them (the way the infinite imaginary > > > > > > inertial frames moving with all possible uniform velocities with > > > > > > respect to the imaginary absolute one are put in existence). In 1905 > > > > > > Relativity, even if you can obtain two entities moving with a relative > > > > > > uniform velocity compatible with Nature laws, they cant be inertial > > > > > > frames, because even being them the unique entities considered by you, > > > > > > the centre of mass inertial system of all the bodies involved continue > > > > > > being the UNIQUE possible inertial frame. > > > > > > And as has been repeated to you over and over again, this is simply > > > > > wrong. > > > > > The center of mass frame is certainly unique. It just isn't the only > > > > > inertial frame in the system. > > > > > Once you have the unique centre of mass inertial frame corresponding > > > > to some determined body set, what denote you by the system? For me, > > > > the centre of mass inertial frame and the system is one and the same > > > > thing. > > > > No, a system is a collection of interacting physical entities. A > > > reference frame is the coordinate system in which the coordinates of > > > those entities have a particular values. > > > > For example, a physical system may include a proton, a neutron and an > > > electron, interacting with each other by various interactions. That > > > system may be viewed by any number of reference frames, and in each > > > reference frame, the coordinates as a function of time of each of the > > > bodies in the system will have values that are unique to that frame. > > > The coordinates are not part of the system, nor is the reference > > > frame. > > > > For example, this system can be viewed from the inertial reference > > > frame where the center of mass of these objects is zero. This very > > > same system can be viewed from an inertial reference system where the > > > center of mass of these objects is moving at 12,323 m/s along the z > > > axis of the first reference frame. The laws of physics will be > > > identical in both those reference frames. > > > > This is all FRESHMAN stuff, on what constitutes a physical system and > > > what a reference frame is. If this is all new to you, then please > > > revisit some freshman materials. > > > Remember that the topic in this thread is 1905 Relativity. I will > > answer your post on that historical context. > > In the Newtonian view exists a primary unique absolute inertial frame, > > the one with absolute space and time. From that frame, relative > > inertial frames can be derived, moving with all possible uniform > > velocities with respect to the absolute one. This covers all possible > > inertial frames, all of them without any relation at all with massive > > bodies. > > In 1905 Relativity the things are completely different, the theory > > starts putting out the absolute frame (and with it then also all the > > other depending on it), remaining then only the massive bodies > > themselves to determine inertial frames. > > And that is wrong, as a NUMBER of people have pointed out to you. You > have refused to let go of that misapprehension. Since you've done > that, there's no real point to continue. > The topic of this thread is very narrow, practically a single physics paper (30Jun1905 Einsteins one). It is then very easy to support any assertion in the debate, making the adequate reference to the 1905 text. I will put here again the literal 1905 text supporting what I am saying about 1905 Relativity. Almost at the end of the introduction (between [ ]): [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.] Specify then in what bodies are you supporting your system of co- ordinates in which you put the c-o-m at a velocity of 12,323 m/s. If you cant do that, contact the NUMBER of people that you refer to help you. I will be very patient waiting for your answer. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |