The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: whoever on 1 Jul 2010 19:27 wrote in message news:c08cf7d9-e00c-48b0-b28b-75a4a0f6f6e6(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > remember that a 1905 Einstein system of co-ordinates has > material lines associated with them, or an equivalent massive rigid > body). Nonsense .. you are terribly confused about frames and 'systems' --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Daryl McCullough on 1 Jul 2010 21:44 valls(a)icmf.inf.cu says... >On 1 jul, 06:58, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >You don't consider a rigid body a massive one? >The essential contribution of 1905 Einstein is precisely the rejection of all >Newtonian non-massive inertial frames You are confused. In the respect of what is involved in an inertial frame, there is no difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian physics. In both cases, an inertial frame is a set of comoving unaccelerated comoving points such that any of the points has zero relative velocity. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Tom Roberts on 2 Jul 2010 00:24 valls(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > In a recent thread we established that > �Centre of mass inertial frames are the unique ones in 1905 > Relativity� > http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/0c8501991104d36c?hl=es# No, "we" didn't. And this claim here is just as wrong as that one. Tom Roberts
From: valls on 2 Jul 2010 06:35 On 1 jul, 23:24, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > In a recent thread we established that > > Centre of mass inertial frames are the unique ones in 1905 > > Relativity > >http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t... > > No, "we" didn't. And this claim here is just as wrong as that one. > Then, following you, the clock at the equator with a gravitational centripetal acceleration in a circular path is an inertial system. Are you able to defend that claim? I don't think so. More probably you will remain silent about it. And don't forget that 1905 Relativity has a huge experimental evidence with today GPS, putting out of any doubt that 1905 Relativity formulas apply to non-inertial frames like the clock at the equator. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > Tom Roberts
From: valls on 2 Jul 2010 06:44
On 1 jul, 18:24, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > wrote in messagenews:de60355e-94d5-4c19-aafc-35ab61249fc7(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > >On 1 jul, 08:21, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> No .. know all that .. point particles are pretty basic. At least > >> you've > >> said something that makes grammatical sense > > >Don't confuse point particle with material point. Our whole Solar > >System is modelled by a material point to describe its movement in the > >Galaxy. The Earth-Moon system is modelled by a material point to > >describe the ecliptic. > > Difference without distinction .. a piont particle is a mathematical > abstraction where an object is able to be represented by a single point when > modelling it .. that point may or may not correspond to some material (eg a > system of two objects orbitting each other could be represented in a larger > system by the point about which they orbit, and that point doesn't > correspond to any material object. How is that different from a 'material' > point .. and how is 'material' point in any way a better notion? > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- Pluto an Charon centre of mass as a material point is modelling both bodies as a unique entity. An the trajectory of this material point around the Sun is the historical Pluto orbit. Is that sufficient to you? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |