The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
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: Daryl McCullough on 19 Jul 2010 20:09 artful says... >On Jul 20, 9:03=A0am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: >> By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the >> unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, > >And that is simply wrong. There is no support for that in the paper. You have to give him credit, though. He has come up with a brand *new* way to misunderstand relativity, that I've never heard before in all my years of discussions of relativity with (ahem) relativity skeptics. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: valls on 20 Jul 2010 06:19 On 19 jul, 18:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:53 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > Read by yourself the 1905 text > > I have. You clearly misinterpret it and read into it things that are > not there. Be explicit. Refer the text you say I misinterpret. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 06:44 On Jul 20, 8:19 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 19 jul, 18:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 20, 4:53 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > Read by yourself the 1905 text > > > I have. You clearly misinterpret it and read into it things that are > > not there. > > Be explicit. No thanks .. there might be children watching > Refer the text you say I misinterpret. The 1905 paper .. pretty much all of it that you quote to support your nonsense.
From: oriel36 on 20 Jul 2010 06:55 On Jul 20, 1:09 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > artful says... > > >On Jul 20, 9:03=A0am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > >> By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > >> unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, > > >And that is simply wrong. There is no support for that in the paper. > > You have to give him credit, though. He has come up with a brand *new* > way to misunderstand relativity, that I've never heard before in all > my years of discussions of relativity with (ahem) relativity skeptics. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY There is no such as proponents or opponents of relativity,it is a consensual agreement among yourselves to remove the distinction between fact and fiction so that rejection or affirmation of the early 20th century proposals is incidental,even the story which led to the emergence of relativity relies on fiction with Newton as a prop and what appears as the ultimate freedom of expression is actually a slavery of the worst kind. It is a shame people can't discuss the matter with confidence,not so much relativity but why those guys over 100 years ago thought they had found a way to escape the mechanical solar system of Newton but had actually carried the core 'no center/no circumference' error with them in attempting to do to Newton what Newton did to everyone else.As sidereal time reasoning, as a drawn conclusion from direct observations of stellar circumpolar motion, generates a very specific viewpoint,readers here can see it looks very like the so-called 'standard model'even though it is a commentary from an era before the Earth's planetary dynamics was discovered - "Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus, A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's .....And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect, to which only learned ignorance is of help-- that the Universe and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa The introduction of the reasoning behind the Earth's daily and orbital motions never relied on stellar circumpolar motion yet this is where a combination of Flamsteed and Newton comes into play by doing exactly that.This exists on a far different level than the story you and your colleagues are prepared to accept,not just the proponents of relativity but also the opponents.
From: valls on 20 Jul 2010 07:24
On 19 jul, 18:16, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:03 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 jul, 15:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2:17 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:36, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:35 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view > > > > > > > > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian > > > > > > > > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to > > > > > > > > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following > > > > > > > > > > Newtons laws (Tycho Brahes work precedes Newtons one). > > > > > > > > > > You are an imbecile, old fart. > > > > > > > > > > > To describe > > > > > > > > > > the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass > > > > > > > > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), > > > > > > > > > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI. > > > > > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago. How dense > > > > > > > are you? > > > > > > > We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905 > > > > > > Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian > > > > > > mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the > > > > > > ECI using Newton's laws. > > > > > > Imbecile, Tycho Brahe already showed how this can be done 600 years > > > > > ago. See here :http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm > > > > > Incredible! Tycho Brahe using Newton's laws. Surely he made a time > > > > travel. > > > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. One can describe a trajectory by either > > > detailed observation or by theoretical prediction, and in fact one > > > should have both and compare them to see if the theory is any good. > > > But Brahe's data are quite good descriptions of the trajectories. > > > > Are you claiming that Newton's laws cannot describe motion from a > > > center-of-mass coordinate? > > > By the contrary, what I am claiming is that in 1905 Relativity the > > unique inertial frames are the centre of mass ones, > > And that is simply wrong. There is no support for that in the paper. > That it does an analysis on and pair of arbitrarily moving bodies does > NOT mean that it only applies to centre-of-mass frames. Simply that > associating a frame with an (imaginary) object makes it easier to > picture In the Introduction of his 30Jun1905 paper, 1905 Einstein put out very clearly the Newtonian absolute inertial frame (and then also any other thing derived from it). The text is the following: [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 the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.] If you dont have already empty inertial frames (not related with massive bodies) moving with absolute uniform velocities (nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of empty space), what remains to determine inertial frames? Only the massive bodies themselves. And from any body set you can determine a unique inertial frame, the corresponding centre of mass one, a fact established in the Newtonian mechanics long before 1905 Einstein. If you have any other valid interpretation of the 1905 text, put it here to consider it. Put an explicit example for an inertial frame (a stationary system using 1905 Einstein denotation) that is not a centre of mass one corresponding to some body set. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |