The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 2 Jul 2010 09:33 wrote in message news:441bf1b4-1ffe-4fc8-b850-2a9f437e63dd(a)30g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > >On 1 jul, 10:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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), Inertial frames do not have mass. You are talking nonsense. There were no inertial frames rejected by the 1905 paper. >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). There is no gravitational attraction between frames of reference .. they are not material things > As a result, >you must consider the centre of mass inertial frame Inertial frames have no centre of mass .. they aren't material. You seem to have NO idea at all what a frame of reference is [snip more nonsense] Please .. learn the meaning of physics terms before attempting to discuss things further,
From: Inertial on 2 Jul 2010 09:44 wrote in message news:6a97003d-7566-43a6-a9d9-b46c4108a4a6(a)a3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > >On 1 jul, 20:44, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> va...(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 Daryl is correct.. you are confused. > I am considering in this thread only 1905 Relativity. Fine .. its not really any different .. just discussed further in terms of its implications in later papers, and presented in other ways > Refer the 1905 > text defining an inertial frame in the way you do. For 1905 Einstein a >stationary system is one in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics >hold good. Yes > In the example at the end of paragraph 4 in the 30Jun1905 > paper, do you mean: === Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ``stationary system.' === that seems to be the fourth by my counting. Or do you mean the end of section 4 "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks"? === If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. === For the purpose of that particular example, he is ignoring the orbit of the earth around the sun, and that of the sun around the galaxy etc, and ignoring mass. ie assuming the ECI is close enough to inertial. > > the rotating Earth is the stationary system (corresponding to > what today is denoted GPS ECI). The ECI is a centre of mass inertial > system, So what .. there's lots of inertial systems > the unique ones in 1905 Relativity 1905 relativity isn't just about ineritla systems centred at centre of mass of bodies > once the absolute frame >(and derived ones moving with all possible uniform velocities with >respect to it) is rejected by 1905 Einstein. No .. they are not at all rejected. You are very confused.
From: Tom Roberts on 2 Jul 2010 09:46 valls(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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. That is a complete fabrication on your part. I never said or implied anything like that. A clock at rest on the surface of the earth at the equator has "gravitational centripetal acceleration", but is not at all inertial (in the sense of either SR or GR) because it also has the force of contact with the earth. In the context of GR, a clock in orbit, which has no real force on it (in GR, "gravitational force" is fictitious), can be considered to be at rest in a LOCALLY inertial frame. That local frame does not extend to the earth, or even over a portion of its path large enough so the curvature can be measured. Your obsession with this is related to a mistake Einstein made in his 1905 paper. General Relativity resolves the mistake. > And don't forget that 1905 Relativity has > a huge experimental evidence with today GPS, That is also wrong. SR (which you call "1905 Relativity") does not include gravitation, and modeling the gravity of the earth is ESSENTIAL to the operation of the GPS. Repeating nonsense and falsehoods does not make them correct. Tom Roberts
From: Inertial on 2 Jul 2010 09:55 "Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:YKudnX9DQ8U4cLDR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > >valls(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: >> 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. > >That is a complete fabrication on your part. I never said or implied >anything like that. Not surprising though .. he seems to be confused about some very basic concepts and has trouble with comprehension esp wrt SR >A clock at rest on the surface of the earth at the equator has >"gravitational centripetal acceleration", but is not at all >inertial (in the sense of either SR or GR) because it also >has the force of contact with the earth. In the context of GR, >a clock in orbit, which has no real force on it (in GR, >"gravitational force" is fictitious), can be considered to be >at rest in a LOCALLY inertial frame. That local frame does not >extend to the earth, or even over a portion of its path large >enough so the curvature can be measured. > >Your obsession with this is related to a mistake Einstein made in his 1905 >paper. General Relativity resolves the mistake. > > >> And don't forget that 1905 Relativity has >> a huge experimental evidence with today GPS, > >That is also wrong. SR (which you call "1905 Relativity") does not include >gravitation, and modeling the gravity of the earth is ESSENTIAL to the >operation of the GPS. > >Repeating nonsense and falsehoods does not make them correct. But it gives him something to do, and make shim feel better ;)
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:14
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. If what you said were true, then Newton's first law would be USELESS, and it is not. > As a result, > you must consider the centre of mass inertial frame corresponding to > all the bodies involved. For ANY body set, you have always a UNIQUE > centre of mass inertial frame. That is true, you do have a unique center of mass frame. However, that is not the only inertial reference frame in that system. It is one of many. > I accepted the definition of inertial frame that you refer. Physics > laws must be always the same in all inertial frames. But I don't > accept that and entity moving at a uniform velocity with respect to > some inertial frame is also an inertial frame (at least not a real > existing one). Then you need to demonstrate to yourself that, in a reference frame that is moving at uniform velocity with respect to the center of mass of a system of bodies, the laws of physics are still the same. Galileo saw that in the early 1600's, but I see you haven't figured that out yet. When you see this is true, then by definition this frame is an inertial reference frame. > Only a non-massive entity can fulfil that requirement, > being then one of the imaginary inertial frames already rejected by > 1905 Einstein. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |