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: valls on 14 Jul 2010 07:18 On 13 jul, 20:34, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > wrote in messagenews: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. Let us suppose that two of my n bodies are the Earth and the Sun. Consider then the GPS ECI inertial frame. You can increase the distance between the Earth and the Sun as you want. Describe the Suns trajectory in the ECI. Maybe you will need the help of Ptolomy. And dont forget that the topic of this thread is about inertial frames. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 14 Jul 2010 09:33 On Jul 14, 4:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > Describe the Suns > trajectory in the ECI. Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago.
From: valls on 14 Jul 2010 09:53 On 13 jul, 16:51, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > <va...(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 > You are making a contradictory statement in the 1905 context. The existence of a Coriolis force is incompatible with Newtons tree mechanical laws. You cant mix equations valid only in inertial frames with equations valid only in non-inertial frames. > 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. > We are in total agreement about the moving system not being an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity. Even I opened a thread in this group with that topic. But how you support your assertion about the stationary system of 1905 Relativity not being an inertial frame? To describe the movement of the clock at the equator 1905 Einstein uses the equations that are only valid in an inertial system, the one determined by the real rotating Earth (that is know today as the GPS ECI), a centre of mass inertial system. Then, your interpretation of the 1905 Relativity stationary system as a non-inertial one is wrong. > 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. > For me it always was a frame where Newtons three mechanical laws hold good. The same for you? Dont forget to support your assertion about not existing inertial frames in the 30Jun1905 Einsteins paper with adequate references to that text. And dont forget also that the topic of this thread is the inertial frame concept, not the word inertial (in any language). > 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? > A bright green flying elephant is an idea not corresponding with a real object, without relation with a system of coordinates in any epoch. My answer is then negative. > In case of negative answer, what is for you a bright green flying elephant > in 1905? Answered already in my previous comment. > ========================================= > > 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. Revise Galileos work. I think LAW I has relation with it. This comment has the goal to protect you from any future plagiarist accusation. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Inertial on 14 Jul 2010 09:55 wrote in message news:a0658b7f-6ec2-4a3b-8480-2497737da187(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >On 13 jul, 20:34, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> wrote in >> messagenews: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. >Let us suppose that two of my n bodies are the Earth and the Sun. Fine. Though 1905SR doesn't cover gravity > Consider then the GPS ECI inertial frame. The ECI is not inertial .. but close What is it you are calling a 'GPS ECI' ? > You can increase the > distance between the Earth and the Sun as you want. In a gedanken ,, yes > Describe the Sun�s > trajectory in the ECI. Its not an inertial frame .. but in that frame the sun appears to move around the earth > Maybe you will need the help of Ptolomy. And > don�t forget that the topic of this thread is about inertial frames. And don't forget the ECI is not an inertial frame. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 14 Jul 2010 15:56
On 14 jul, 08:33, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 14, 4:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > Describe the Suns > > trajectory in the ECI. > > 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). To describe the Suns trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass inertial frame (or maybe a greater one), putting very clear that the equivalence among inertial frames doesnt hold true in 1905 Relativity. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |