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 19 Jul 2010 10:40 On 19 jul, 08:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > wrote in messagenews:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc..googlegroups.com... > > > > >On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> wrote in > > > >> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not close) centre of mass inertial > > > > >> WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > > > >> Please. . try to get the basics right > > > > >> [snip rest of nonsense unread] > > > > >Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame. > > > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of > > > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of > > > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to > > > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken > > > into account when performing experiments or analysing observations. > > > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper > > > that introduced relativity. > > > The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely > > the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact inertial > > frame, the ECI. > > Wrong ( in terms of SR ) .. from GR perspective, as the earth is in > free-fall, it is equivalent to an inertial frame .. but only locally. > Once you put the sun etc in the picture, then it is not. > The topic of this thread is only 1905 Relativity. I dont care about Special Relativity (where gravity is out), and much less about General Relativity. When I refer to the inertial frame where the Earth is rotating, I mean the stationary system used by 1905 Einstein in his example at the end of paragraph 4 in his 30Jun1905 paper (the today denoted ECI). > > And we have gravity here, inside the ECI determining > > the satellite orbits (affecting also clock running) and outside the > > ECI determining the Earths orbit around the Sun. Where do you see > > here a uniform velocity movement in straight line? > > Nowhere .. if you view from the 'outside' .. its not inertial. But > locally we can treat the ECI as inertial in GR. > See my previous comment. I have nothing to do with the local ECI of SR or with GR. > > Same remark about > > the Solar System (the more exact inertial frame known by men) that is > > moving around the Galaxy following a non-straight line trajectory. > > See with care. You dont need an external uniform velocity for a > > system to be an inertial one. > > You do > Not in the sense of 1905 Einstein stationary system, a one in which Newtonian equations hold good. Refer the 1905 text where the stationary system must be one moving with a uniform velocity (different from the zero one, of course). > > I am using the 1905 Einstein definition > > about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which > > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. > > They don't in an accelerating system. > The ECI (a centre of mass inertial frame) is moving with a gravitational centripetal acceleration around the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon inertial system (and this last one with a similar acceleration in the Solar System centre of mass inertial frame) And Newtons laws hold very good in the ECI. In a centre of mass inertial frame (a Newtonian concept developed long before 1905 Einstein), the reference frame and the referenced bodies are one and the same thing. > > > > You only need a > > sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of > > the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a > > uniform one. > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 20, 12:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 19 jul, 08:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 10:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > wrote in messagenews:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> wrote in > > > > >> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not close) centre of mass inertial > > > > > >> WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > > > > >> Please. . try to get the basics right > > > > > >> [snip rest of nonsense unread] > > > > > >Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame. > > > > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of > > > > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of > > > > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to > > > > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken > > > > into account when performing experiments or analysing observations. > > > > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper > > > > that introduced relativity. > > > > The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely > > > the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact inertial > > > frame, the ECI. > > > Wrong ( in terms of SR ) .. from GR perspective, as the earth is in > > free-fall, it is equivalent to an inertial frame .. but only locally. > > Once you put the sun etc in the picture, then it is not. > > The topic of this thread is only 1905 Relativity. Same as Sr > I dont care about > Special Relativity (where gravity is out), Its the same thing. Your failure to understand that is your problem > and much less about General > Relativity. When I refer to the inertial frame where the Earth is > rotating, I mean the stationary system used by 1905 Einstein in his > example at the end of paragraph 4 in his 30Jun1905 paper (the today > denoted ECI). It was just a simple example .. not a definition of what an inertial frame is. Gees. You read WAY to much into things to the point of completely misunderstanding the intent > > > And we have gravity here, inside the ECI determining > > > the satellite orbits (affecting also clock running) and outside the > > > ECI determining the Earths orbit around the Sun. Where do you see > > > here a uniform velocity movement in straight line? > > > Nowhere .. if you view from the 'outside' .. its not inertial. But > > locally we can treat the ECI as inertial in GR. > > See my previous comment. I have nothing to do with the local ECI of SR > or with GR. You're the one talking about them. That you don't understand that that is what you're talking about is your problem. > > > Same remark about > > > the Solar System (the more exact inertial frame known by men) that is > > > moving around the Galaxy following a non-straight line trajectory. > > > See with care. You dont need an external uniform velocity for a > > > system to be an inertial one. > > > You do > > Not in the *sense of 1905 Einstein stationary system, a one in which > Newtonian equations hold good. Yes.. you do > Refer the 1905 text where the > stationary system must be one moving with a uniform velocity > (different from the zero one, of course). So how does that show that you do NOT need a uniform velocity, when you give an example from the paper where it IS in uniform velocity > > > I am using the 1905 Einstein definition > > > about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which > > > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. > > > They don't in an accelerating system. > > The ECI (a centre of mass inertial frame) is moving with a > gravitational centripetal acceleration around the centre of mass of > the Earth-Moon inertial system (and this last one with a similar > acceleration in the Solar System centre of mass inertial frame) And > Newtons laws hold very good in the ECI. Only when considered locally (as GR says). of course, an object on the earth surface doesn't satisfy that, as obejcts won't continue in stright line motion .. they accelerate 'downward' > In a centre of mass inertial > frame (a Newtonian concept developed long before 1905 Einstein), the > reference frame and the referenced bodies are one and the same thing. Nope. The origin of the frame will correspond with the centre of mass of the body .. but that doesn't make them the same thing. Please.. try to keep up with physics,. > > > You only need a > > > sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of > > > the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a > > > uniform one. > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 19 Jul 2010 14:53 On 19 jul, 09:58, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 10:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > wrote in messagenews:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> wrote in > > > > > >> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not close) centre of mass inertial > > > > > > >> WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > > > > > >> Please. . try to get the basics right > > > > > > >> [snip rest of nonsense unread] > > > > > > >Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame. > > > > > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of > > > > > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of > > > > > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to > > > > > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken > > > > > into account when performing experiments or analysing observations. > > > > > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper > > > > > that introduced relativity. > > > > > The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely > > > > the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact inertial > > > > frame, the ECI. > > > > Wrong ( in terms of SR ) .. from GR perspective, as the earth is in > > > free-fall, it is equivalent to an inertial frame .. but only locally. > > > Once you put the sun etc in the picture, then it is not. > > > The topic of this thread is only 1905 Relativity. > > Same as Sr > Read by yourself the 1905 text to convince that 1905 Relativity (1905R) is not Special Relativity (SR), a denotation introduced by 1916 Einstein to distinguish his previous work on Relativity from his new General Relativity (GR) theory. Between 1905 and 1916 many changes were introduced in Relativity. For example, space and time remain separated in 1905R, but they were united in the space-time concept developed in the work of 1907 Minkowski. In 1905R is used Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and Newtonian mechanics (see the beginning of the paragraph 1 in the 30Jun1905 paper), different from today SR characterized by a pseudo-Euclidean geometry. Gravity was declared out from SR, but in the real example present in 1905R (at the end of paragraph 4 of the same referenced paper), we find as the moving system a clock at the equator with a gravitational centripetal accelerated circular path. Is that already sufficient to you to understand that 1905R and SR is not the same thing? > > I dont care about > > Special Relativity (where gravity is out), > > Its the same thing. Your failure to understand that is your problem > See my previous comment. > > and much less about General > > Relativity. When I refer to the inertial frame where the Earth is > > rotating, I mean the stationary system used by 1905 Einstein in his > > example at the end of paragraph 4 in his 30Jun1905 paper (the today > > denoted ECI). > > It was just a simple example .. not a definition of what an inertial > frame is. Gees. You read WAY to much into things to the point of > completely misunderstanding the intent > Read at the beginning of paragraph 1 about what type of system (denoted by him stationary) is 1905 Einstein managing. A reference system in which the equation of Newtonian mechanics hold good corresponds to what is denoted in 1905 (and even today) inertial frame. > > > > And we have gravity here, inside the ECI determining > > > > the satellite orbits (affecting also clock running) and outside the > > > > ECI determining the Earths orbit around the Sun. Where do you see > > > > here a uniform velocity movement in straight line? > > > > Nowhere .. if you view from the 'outside' .. its not inertial. But > > > locally we can treat the ECI as inertial in GR. > > > See my previous comment. I have nothing to do with the local ECI of SR > > or with GR. > > You're the one talking about them. That you don't understand that > that is what you're talking about is your problem. > You are the one here not understanding yet that 1905R and SR is not the same thing. I reference the Earth rotating in a 1905 Einstein stationary system, not as a local inertial frame related with SR and GR. SR and GR were introduced only by you. > > > > Same remark about > > > > the Solar System (the more exact inertial frame known by men) that is > > > > moving around the Galaxy following a non-straight line trajectory. > > > > See with care. You dont need an external uniform velocity for a > > > > system to be an inertial one. > > > > You do > > > Not in the *sense of 1905 Einstein stationary system, a one in which > > Newtonian equations hold good. > > Yes.. you do > No, I dont. Neither me or 1905 Einstein talks about having a uniform velocity as a condition to be an inertial frame. Remember that 1905 Einstein refers an inertial frame as a stationary one. > > Refer the 1905 text where the > > stationary system must be one moving with a uniform velocity > > (different from the zero one, of course). > > So how does that show that you do NOT need a uniform velocity, when > you give an example from the paper where it IS in uniform velocity > You fail to refer the 1905 text where the uniform velocity condition is put for an inertial frame (stationary system). Maybe you refer to the moving system (clock at the equator) with a uniform speed? > > > > I am using the 1905 Einstein definition > > > > about what an inertial system (stationary system) is, a one in which > > > > the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. > > > > They don't in an accelerating system. > > > The ECI (a centre of mass inertial frame) is moving with a > > gravitational centripetal acceleration around the centre of mass of > > the Earth-Moon inertial system (and this last one with a similar > > acceleration in the Solar System centre of mass inertial frame) And > > Newtons laws hold very good in the ECI. > > Only when considered locally (as GR says). of course, an object on > the earth surface doesn't satisfy that, as obejcts won't continue in > stright line motion .. they accelerate 'downward' > I proved to you already that 1905R is not equal to SR. And the stationary system 1905 Einstein uses in his example has nothing to do with any local concept developed after 1905 (you know what an anachronism is?) In 1905R gravity is present, it is considered out from SR after 1905. > > In a centre of mass inertial > > frame (a Newtonian concept developed long before 1905 Einstein), the > > reference frame and the referenced bodies are one and the same thing. > > Nope. The origin of the frame will correspond with the centre of mass > of the body .. but that doesn't make them the same thing. Please.. > try to keep up with physics,. > The centre of mass is determined by all the bodies involved, the corresponding inertial frame is then determined by all the body set. And later this same body set are the bodies (and the unique ones) described in that inertial frame. The same body set is at the same time the reference frame and he referenced bodies. As an example, all the bodies of the Solar System determine de corresponding centre of mass inertial frame (the centre of mass is a little out from the Sun), and this same body set are the bodies (and only the ones) referenced in the inertial frame that they themselves determine. > > > > > > You only need a > > > > sufficiently equal external ACCELERATION in each one of the parts of > > > > the system, and even that external acceleration doesnt need to be a > > > > uniform one. > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 19 Jul 2010 15:17 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. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 16:04
<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:0daaa653-90b6-4448-950b-ae11839d4dc4(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On 19 jul, 09:58, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:40 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 jul, 08:13, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 10:24 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 17 jul, 07:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > wrote in > > > > > messagenews:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> wrote in > > > > > >> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not �close�) centre of mass > > > > > >> >inertial > > > > > > >> WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun > > > > > > >> Please. . try to get the basics right > > > > > > >> [snip rest of nonsense unread] > > > > > > >Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial > > > > > >frame. > > > > > > A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in > > > > > our part of > > > > > the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the > > > > > influence of > > > > > gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are > > > > > close to > > > > > inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be > > > > > taken > > > > > into account when performing experiments or analysing > > > > > observations. > > > > > > Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 > > > > > paper > > > > > that introduced relativity. > > > > > The frame that you reject first for being non-inertial is precisely > > > > the best example of what today is recognized as a very exact > > > > inertial > > > > frame, the ECI. > > > > Wrong ( in terms of SR ) .. from GR perspective, as the earth is in > > > free-fall, it is equivalent to an inertial frame .. but only locally. > > > Once you put the sun etc in the picture, then it is not. > > > The topic of this thread is only 1905 Relativity. > > Same as Sr > Read by yourself the 1905 text to convince that 1905 Relativity (1905R) is not Special Relativity (SR), a denotation introduced by 1916 Einstein to distinguish his previous work on Relativity from his new General Relativity (GR) theory. Between 1905 and 1916 many changes were introduced in Relativity. For example, space and time remain separated in 1905R, but they were united in the space-time concept developed in the work of 1907 Minkowski. In 1905R is used Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and Newtonian mechanics (see the beginning of the paragraph 1 in the 30Jun1905 paper), different from today SR characterized by a pseudo-Euclidean geometry. Gravity was declared out from SR, but in the real example present in 1905R (at the end of paragraph 4 of the same referenced paper), we find as the moving system a clock at the equator with a gravitational centripetal accelerated circular path. Is that already sufficient to you to understand that 1905R and SR is not the same thing? ================================================= SR is Chinese whispers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers |