The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 13 Jul 2010 11:57 On Jul 13, 8:53 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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 ....no, we think that you are a stupid old fart.
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 13:30 On Jul 13, 9:00 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> ... > > Einstein built his whole theory on the real existence of rigid bodies. Rigid bodies that sit IN inertial reference frames, yes. The rigid bodies are not IDENTIFIED WITH the reference frames. This is where the problem lies. > 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. I'm not introducing it. Those inertial frames have been around since Galileo. > > 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. Photons have been measured to do exactly this. Thus your claim that there are no such objects is falsified. > The solution is to abolish BOTH 1) & 2) in establishing the EM > interaction.
From: Inertial on 14 Jul 2010 01:32
wrote in message news:298969a1-c8d3-44b6-a6a8-bd742f572dbf(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >On 12 jul, 16:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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)]. That one can associate coordinates with rigid boies does NOT mean that 1905 relativity (or any subsequent developments of it) apply ONLY to systems of coordinates 'attached' to rigid bodies >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. ] So no aether required in the analysis and no special absolute frame required in the analysis >1905 Einstein is declaring very clearly not to require the Newtonian >absolute space. Noone is saying it does > 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), WRONG .. that is your complete misuntepretation. Inertial frames of reference are NOT dependent on ANY absoute frame. >I am >properly describing 1905 Relativity. Nope .. you're making up your own nonsense >All the non-massive frames that >you pretend to maintain in 1905 Relativity are clearly out of it. WRONG. Totally and completely. It does NOT rule out ANY inertial frame of reference. It simply does not make use of any absolute frame. In fact it is totally CONTRARY to what the paper actually says [snip reset from nonsense misinterpretation of 1905 SR] |