The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 7 Jul 2010 18:05 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. To understand my error, please, put a simple example of what you denote the system, with at least two different inertial frames in it. Maybe two (or more) bodies separated among them by a very great distance can be such an example? > Since we can't seem to get past this point, and you keep circling back > to the same misstatement, I don't think there's benefit in my > discussing it further. > Anybody has the right to stop (or continue) a debate when he wants. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 7 Jul 2010 18:06 <valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:aab3245e-3084-4f33-b3a2-b53d52f40c33(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On 7 jul, 09:16, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > 1905 Einstein identify systems of coordinates with rigid bodies, more > > specifically (beginning of paragraph 3), with three rigid material > > lines. > > So READ that paragraph and note the parenthetical after "rigid bodies" -- > "(systems of coordinates)". There is no massive or material object > associated > with a system of coordinates. He merely requires them to be "rigid". > How can you conceive a rigid body without mass? ======================================== The same way that you can conceive the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Dork Matter, Black Holes or Aether. It is a theoretical construct that doesn't exist in Nature. There are no perfectly rigid bodies but there are perfectly rigid systems of coordinates because a coordinate is rigid by definition. The length of a ruler is not the ruler.
From: PD on 7 Jul 2010 18:46 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. > To understand my error, please, put a simple example of what > you denote the system, with at least two different inertial frames > in it. Maybe two (or more) bodies separated among them by a very great > distance can be such an example? > > > Since we can't seem to get past this point, and you keep circling back > > to the same misstatement, I don't think there's benefit in my > > discussing it further. > > Anybody has the right to stop (or continue) a debate when he wants. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 20:20 On Jul 7, 8:54 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 2 jul, 08:33, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > wrote in messagenews: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, > > Read in th 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper where he put out the Newtonian > primary absolute inertial frame. In the Introduction: [The > introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be superfluous > inasmuch as the view to be developed will not require an absolutely > stationary space ] > 1905 Einstein identify systems of coordinates with rigid bodies, more > specifically (beginning of paragraph 3), with three rigid material > lines. You think that these things are non-massive ones? A material > point is a Newtonian basic concept where a body is modelled with all > its mass considered concentred in its centre of mass. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) I have. It does not support your view Your continued repeating of your obvious misinterpretation does not make you any more correct Your claims that a frame of reference is a rigid massive material body is UTTER NONSENSE.
From: valls on 8 Jul 2010 07:31
On 2 jul, 08:46, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > va...(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. > Excuse me, I supposed (erroneously) that you were referring to the topic of this thread. > 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. > I take note that you are in agreement with the assertion in the title. > Your obsession with this is related to a mistake Einstein made in his 1905 > paper. General Relativity resolves the mistake. > Can you detail what consider you a mistake in 1905 Einsteins paper? This point is of great interest to me. > > 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. > Refer to the 1905 text to support your assertion that gravitation is excluded from 1905 Relativity. Maybe this is related with your 1905 Einsteins mistake. We are in agreement about gravity being essential to GPS operation. But what relationship are you establishing between that and the GPS support of 1905 Relativity? Specify clearly what assertion of 1905 Relativity do you consider is not supported by the GPS experimental evidence. > Repeating nonsense and falsehoods does not make them correct. > We are in agreement about that. It is not sufficient to say something without adequate support. > Tom Roberts RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |