Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
Next: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing
From: Androcles on 13 Jul 2010 17:51

<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:cca31468-f240-45d0-846d-e2f1334f22da(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 13 jul, 14:42, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> <va...(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:8025d47e-eecf-4b5e-9a9a-d18ee9259310(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> | Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among
> | all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905
> | Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
> There no inertial frames in 1905 relativity, that is a figment
> of your crazed imagination.

In the 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper it is denoted "stationary system" a
"system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics
hold good". That kind of system is not for you an inertial one?

============================================
The equations of mechanics hold good in ALL system of co-ordinates,
you just need to know what they are.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov

In the 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper it is stated :

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
1/2t v^2/c^2 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.

A curved path is not an inertial path.
Nowhere does it say "inertial" in 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper, you are crazy.

In
case of negative answer, what is for you an inertial frame in 1905?
============================================
The same as it always was. There are no inertial frames in 30Jun1905
Einstein's paper, you are crazy.

In the 30Jun1905 Einstein's paper it is denoted "stationary system" a
"system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics
hold good". That kind of system is not for you a bright green flying
elephant?

In case of negative answer, what is for you a bright green flying elephant
in 1905?
=========================================

This last question has no relation at all with 1905 Relativity.
=========================================
That's right, it doesn't.

Androcles' laws of motion for rotating frames of reference.
LAW I.
Every body perseveres in its state of circular motion in a curved line,
unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Proof:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
LAW II.
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is
impressed. (same as Newton and Galileo)

LAW III.
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts. (same as Newton)

The equations of mechanics hold good in ALL system of co-ordinates, you just
need to know what they are.




From: valls on 13 Jul 2010 18:57
On 13 jul, 16:28, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among
> > all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905
> > Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the
> > trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them?
>
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> Rafael, I will give you here again my more precise translation
> (admittedly less smooth) of a few phrases of the introduction of
> Einstein's paper to which you are referring, as the original is subtly
> different from the official translation:
>
> "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
> lead to the presumption that the concepts of absolute rest not
> only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics do not correspond to
> properties of the phenomena. They suggest rather that for all
> coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics hold good,
> also the same laws of electrodynamics and optics hold good, as has
> already been shown to the first order."
>
> Technically speaking, 1905 relativity speaks of *coordinate systems* -
> and according to that theory, we have as many inertial (Newtonian)
> coordinate systems as in Newton's mechanics - which is as many as you
> want. All trajectories of all bodies can be described in each of them;
> SRT added the claim that this old mechanics concept should *also*
> perfectly work for electrodynamics.
>
Hello Harald, thanks a lot for your new contribution.
I am afraid that your new text doesn’t cover all the text of my
interest. A little ahead 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 with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a
point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place”
In this last text 1905 Einstein is putting out from his new theory not
only the ether, but also the Newtonian absolute space, what reduces in
an essential way the coordinate systems of the Newtonian mechanics
that remain in 1905 Relativity. Being present no more the absolute
space with its absolute coordinate system, the relative spaces (moving
with all possible absolute uniform velocities) with their relative
coordinate systems, result also out from 1905 Relativity. Being all
the non-related with massive bodies coordinate systems out, only
remain the related with massive bodies ones, which are no other than
the centre of mass coordinates systems (like the corresponding one to
the today denoted GPS ECI, used already by 1905 Einstein in his
example at the end of paragraph 4).

> Good luck. ;-)
>
> Harald
Please, let me know if for the text that I added here exists some
relevant difference with the original.
Best regards,

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Inertial on 13 Jul 2010 21:34
wrote in message
news:8025d47e-eecf-4b5e-9a9a-d18ee9259310(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among
>all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905
>Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the
>trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them?

An infinite number of them. And every body can be described in every frame.
Next.

From: harald on 14 Jul 2010 03:23
On Jul 14, 12:57 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 13 jul, 16:28, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among
> > > all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905
> > > Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the
> > > trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them?
>
> > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> > Rafael, I will give you here again my more precise translation
> > (admittedly less smooth) of a few phrases of the introduction of
> > Einstein's paper to which you are referring, as the original is subtly
> > different from the official translation:
>
> > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
> > lead to the presumption that the concepts of absolute rest not
> > only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics do not correspond to
> > properties of the phenomena. They suggest rather that for all
> > coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics hold good,
> > also the same laws of electrodynamics and optics hold good, as has
> > already been shown to the first order."
>
> > Technically speaking, 1905 relativity speaks of *coordinate systems* -
> > and according to that theory, we have as many inertial (Newtonian)
> > coordinate systems as in Newton's mechanics - which is as many as you
> > want. All trajectories of all bodies can be described in each of them;
> > SRT added the claim that this old mechanics concept should *also*
> > perfectly work for electrodynamics.
>
> Hello Harald, thanks a lot for your new contribution.
> I am afraid that your new text doesn’t cover all the text of my
> interest. A little ahead 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 with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a
> point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place”
> In this last text 1905 Einstein is putting out from his new theory not
> only the ether, but also the Newtonian absolute space, what reduces in
> an essential way the coordinate systems of the Newtonian mechanics
> that remain in 1905 Relativity. Being present no more the absolute
> space with its absolute coordinate system, the relative spaces (moving
> with all possible absolute uniform velocities) with their relative
> coordinate systems, result also out from 1905 Relativity. Being all
> the non-related with massive bodies coordinate systems out, only
> remain the related with massive bodies ones, which are no other than
> the centre of mass coordinates systems (like the corresponding one to
> the today denoted GPS ECI, used already by 1905 Einstein
> in his example at the end of paragraph 4).
>
> > Good luck. ;-)
>
> > Harald
>
> Please, let me know if for the text that I added here
> exists some relevant difference with the original.
> Best regards,
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Probably not - but surprises are always possible. Here the result of
my 10 min. work:

"These two postulates suffice to attain a simple and contradiction-
free electrodynamics of moving bodies by basing it on Maxwell's theory
for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether''
will be shown to be insofar superfluous as according to the here to be
developed view neither an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided
with special properties is introduced, nor is a velocity-vector
assigned to a point in empty space, in which electromagnetic processes
take place."

As a matter of fact, it DOES make a subtle difference - but probably
not for you.

All the best,
Harald
From: oriel36 on 14 Jul 2010 03:48
On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 13 jul, 16:28, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > Let be n bodies, each one with a different mass and separated among
> > > all them at huge distances (as great as you want). Following 1905
> > > Relativity, how many different inertial frames we have here, and the
> > > trajectories of what bodies can be described in each one of them?
>
> > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> > Rafael, I will give you here again my more precise translation
> > (admittedly less smooth) of a few phrases of the introduction of
> > Einstein's paper to which you are referring, as the original is subtly
> > different from the official translation:
>
> > "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
> > lead to the presumption that the concepts of absolute rest not
> > only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics do not correspond to
> > properties of the phenomena. They suggest rather that for all
> > coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics hold good,
> > also the same laws of electrodynamics and optics hold good, as has
> > already been shown to the first order."
>
> > Technically speaking, 1905 relativity speaks of *coordinate systems* -
> > and according to that theory, we have as many inertial (Newtonian)
> > coordinate systems as in Newton's mechanics - which is as many as you
> > want. All trajectories of all bodies can be described in each of them;
> > SRT added the claim that this old mechanics concept should *also*
> > perfectly work for electrodynamics.
>
> Hello Harald, thanks a lot for your new contribution.
> I am afraid that your new text doesn’t cover all the text of my
> interest. A little ahead 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 with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a
> point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place”
> In this last text 1905 Einstein is putting out from his new theory not
> only the ether, but also the Newtonian absolute space, what reduces in
> an essential way the coordinate systems of the Newtonian mechanics
> that remain in 1905 Relativity. Being present no more the absolute
> space with its absolute coordinate system, the relative spaces (moving
> with all possible absolute uniform velocities) with their relative
> coordinate systems, result also out from 1905 Relativity.

You know,it is actually possible to discuss what Isaac was really
doing first before looking at any other considerations unless you have
a desperate need to generate fiction upon fiction.Isaac tried to use
the Ra/Dec framework, that you call an inertial reference, to act as a
bridge between celestial observations,modelling and predictions.In an
overall defining sense what Isaac tried to do is fairly simple - he
railroaded the resolution for the Earth's orbital motion into a
hypothetical 'observer' whereas the actual resolution is based on
retrogrades as an illusion caused by the Earth's own motion.

What goes on in the sci.physics forums and especially relativity is a
direct result of Newton being greedy,the empiricists before him
retained terrestrial effects when considering relationships between
planetary motions,their cycles and experimental analogies whereas
Isaac tried to obliterate the interpretative method of astronomy which
is required to distinguish apparent and actual motions on one side and
destroy the speculative necessities of analogies on the other.It is
not that he was secretive about this,in fact,he openly states what his
approach is and although it is at variance with the antecedent
astronomical methods and insights,it is understandable and nothing
like this constant dithering around with phrases that sound great but
are devoid of content.

There is no imperative but to go outside and take in the spectacle of
the great cycles instead of being caught up entirely in something that
exists only in the imagination of somebody who lived 3 hundred years
ago and was not dealt properly 100 years ago.






Being all
> the non-related with massive bodies coordinate systems out, only
> remain the related with massive bodies ones, which are no other than
> the centre of mass coordinates systems (like the corresponding one to
> the today denoted GPS ECI, used already by 1905 Einstein in his
> example at the end of paragraph 4).
>
> > Good luck. ;-)
>
> > Harald
>
> Please, let me know if for the text that I added here exists some
> relevant difference with the original.
> Best regards,
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
Next: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing