The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: oriel36 on 12 Jul 2010 17:31 On Jul 8, 2:38 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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. The thing about this is that a person can get lost pretty quickly when dealing with Isaac's idea of relative/absolute time or,like Mach,get a volcanic irritation - "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed. Sorry to disappoint Mach but absolute/relative time as Isaac looked at it is the single greatest point of departure for everything that came before and followed including relativity - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured." Principia There are about a dozen different ways to approach this but it relies on people actually wanting to find a direction out of a maze of astronomical references which constitute the bulk of the 'time' topic.The key to it all is that there is no external reference for what Mach found irritating while Mach would have worked and lived with the idea that the so-called 'inertial reference' to which all other motions were compared is the troublesome one. 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 13 Jul 2010 06:28 On 12 jul, 16:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > On 8 jul, 15:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 8, 12:46 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > 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.] > > > > Kinematics refers to the motion of bodies in a physical system, where > > > that motion is defined in terms of coordinates that are particular to > > > a reference frame. > > > > Note that I have distinguished for you a physical system from a > > > reference frame. > > > > The rigid bodies in a physical system are referenced by coordinates > > > appropriate to a reference frame that does not belong to the physical > > > system itself. This is where you are misreading the text of the > > > article. > > > A reference frame (with a particular system of coordinates) > > independent from the referenced bodies (physical system) cant exist > > at all in 1905 Relativity. > > And as I've repeated told you (and will tell you no more), this is > just plain hogwash. > > > Those reference frames, with no relation at > > all with physical (massive) bodies, are precisely the ones put out by > > 1905 Einstein when starting his theory: the absolute frame and the > > relative ones depending on it. This is why 1905 Einstein identifies > > rigid bodies with systems of coordinates > > He does NOT. He identifies rigid bodies IN systems of coordinates. > You repeatedly misread this. I've corrected you a number of times. > Since you still cannot read correctly, there's nothing more to say. You have no right at all to introduce the IN between rigid bodies and system of coordinates. 1905 Einstein clearly identify rigid bodies with systems of coordinates, writing [rigid bodies (systems of coordinates)]. I always support all what I say about 1905 Relativity referencing the relevant 1905 text. The rejection of the Newtonian absolute frame is the starting and more important assertion of 1905 Relativity. In the introduction of the 30Jun1905 Einstein´s paper we can read: [The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an absolutely stationary space provided by special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ] 1905 Einstein is declaring very clearly not to require the Newtonian absolute space. In the following paragraph 1, the Newtonian absolute time is put out in all detail. When I say that the absolute frame is put out (and then also all the relative ones depending on it), I am properly describing 1905 Relativity. All the non-massive frames that you pretend to maintain in 1905 Relativity are clearly out of it. You are the one negated to accept the 1905 text, even offering me to you the relevant text with a detailed analysis of its meaning in the historical 1905 context. I will repeat to you once more the relevant 1905 text where 1905 Einstein identify rigid bodies with systems of coordinates. Almost at the end of the introduction we can read: [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 relationship between rigid bodies (system of coordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.] When you write He identifies rigid bodies IN systems of coordinates , you are simply making a totally unacceptable modification of the 1905 text ( the IN is only yours), not taking into account that systems of coordinates independent from bodies can not exist in 1905 Relativity once all non-massive frames are already out from it, as I explained to you in all detail referring the 1905 text. See how the rotating Earth´s axis arises, and with it a complete Euclidean space, corresponding to the centre of mass inertial frame (the today denoted GPS ECI). In 1905 Relativity, the set of all involved massive bodies determine the corresponding stationary inertial system, never assigning a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. > (by the way, the rigid > > character is really not necessary, see the example at the end of > > paragraph 4 where a rotating non-rigid Earth is more than sufficient > > to determine a centre of mass stationary system, and where the > > reference frame and the referenced physical bodies are one and the > > same thing). The involved massive bodies themselves are the ones > > determining a unique inertial reference frame, the centre of mass > > one. > > When you put the c-o-m with the velocity 12,323 m/s, you select ANY > > velocity. Dont you see clearly that you are using precisely the > > inertial reference frames put out by 1905 Einstein? You are > > considering (surely without realizing it) the c-o-m inertial frame as > > the absolute one, and the other inertial frame (where you put the c-o- > > m with velocity 12,323 m/s) as any of the relative ones moving with > > respect to the absolute frame with all possible uniform velocities. > > You are putting a non-massive (imaginary) inertial frame at rest with > > a massive (real) one moving with respect to it at the total arbitrary > > uniform velocity that you want. Following that procedure you can put > > for example our real Earth (ECI frame) moving uniformly at 0.999c with > > respect to some imaginary frame, a model without any value at all to > > represent our real Universe, that is the goal of any science. > > > > > 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. > > > > There are no bodies needed to support a system of coordinates. A > > > system of coordinates exists independent of a collection of bodies. > > > Only in the Newtonian view based in the primary absolute frame > > rejected by 1905 Einstein. What you say has nothing to do with 1905 > > Relativity, the topic of this thread. In my last comment I addressed > > already this in all detail. > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: oriel36 on 13 Jul 2010 07:55 On Jul 13, 11:28 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > I always support all what I say about 1905 Relativity referencing the > relevant 1905 text. The rejection of the Newtonian absolute frame is > the starting and more important assertion of 1905 Relativity. In the > introduction of the 30Jun1905 Einstein´s paper we can read: > [The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an absolutely stationary space provided by special properties, nor > assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place. ] Relativity, as a facet of empiricism, is like a long running,open- ended fictional narrative which has a strange feel to it like Orwell's '1984' and especially that phrase - ".. to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety;" Orwell '1984' For instance,how people manage to associate 'aether' with absolute space,as least as Isaac was trafficking in that term,takes a lot of effort,I mean,the guy had definite ideas about 'aether' that are in context of his elaborate scheme and using terms like 'utterly rejected' should be enough for anybody.So,here we have empiricists dumping aether on Newton as absolute space and then rejec ting something which Isaac had already rejected - you couldn't make this stuff up - "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Isaac Newton 1704 The fact that people can read that paragraph and comprehend it,at least superficially,is incidental to the on-going comic strip science,it doesn't matter that Isaac rejected aether nor that the relativity guys dumped aether on him anyway thereby rejecting aether on their own terms and then bringing it back again a decade later,an indoctrination is an indoctrination and you can get people to say and believe anything for no good reason.
From: maxwell on 13 Jul 2010 10:00 On Jul 12, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... Einstein built his whole theory on the real existence of rigid bodies. You are retro-fixing a flawed theory by introducing the mathematical fiction of co-ordinate systems which can be defined without the idea of rigid bodies. Any system constructed from 1) moving objects (eg EM waves) 2) objects always move at the same speed to all observers must result in either the Lorentz or Voigt transforms. The error is number 2 - there are no such objects in the real world. The solution is to abolish BOTH 1) & 2) in establishing the EM interaction.
From: valls on 13 Jul 2010 11:53
On 13 jul, 06:55, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 11:28 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > I always support all what I say about 1905 Relativity referencing the > > relevant 1905 text. The rejection of the Newtonian absolute frame is > > the starting and more important assertion of 1905 Relativity. In the > > introduction of the 30Jun1905 Einstein´s paper we can read: > > [The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > > an absolutely stationary space provided by special properties, nor > > assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place. ] > > Relativity, as a facet of empiricism, is like a long running,open- > ended fictional narrative which has a strange feel to it like Orwell's > '1984' and especially that phrase - > > ".. to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it > back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then > promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process > to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety;" Orwell > '1984' > > For instance,how people manage to associate 'aether' with absolute > space,as least as Isaac was trafficking in that term,takes a lot of > effort,I mean,the guy had definite ideas about 'aether' that are in > context of his elaborate scheme and using terms like 'utterly > rejected' should be enough for anybody.So,here we have empiricists > dumping aether on Newton as absolute space and then rejec ting > something which Isaac had already rejected - you couldn't make this > stuff up - > > "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space > is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions > of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of > gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts > for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would > be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large > celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the > microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of > their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. > Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but > would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken > them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such > matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Isaac > Newton 1704 > > The fact that people can read that paragraph and comprehend it,at > least superficially,is incidental to the on-going comic strip > science,it doesn't matter that Isaac rejected aether nor that the > relativity guys dumped aether on him anyway thereby rejecting aether > on their own terms and then bringing it back again a decade later,an > indoctrination is an indoctrination and you can get people to say and > believe anything for no good reason. 1905 Einstein is putting out from his new theory both concepts, the aether and the absolute inertial frame, no matter if the absolute space is considered or not by someone fill or not with aether. His reference to the empty space put clear that. By the way, dont you want to participate in the debate of this thread? I am claiming here that the unique inertial frames in 1905 Relativity are the centre of mass ones corresponding to determined massive body sets. My opponents here think that the non-massive inertial frames put out by 1905 Einstein continue present in 1905 Relativity, confusing it with the today Special Relativity. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |