Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #462612 > unrolled thread

sci.physics.relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-25 13:29 -0700
    Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 00:17 -0700
      Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 09:54 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 23:59 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-28 10:52 -0700
            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-28 11:46 -0700
              Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-29 10:51 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 09:18 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 10:42 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:43 +0000
        Re: sci.physics.relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 14:29 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 15:11 -0700
      Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 10:40 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:49 +0000
          Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 11:55 -0700
            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 13:41 -0700
              Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 14:44 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:42 -0700
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:44 -0700
    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-27 02:03 +1000
      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-26 19:29 +0200
        Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-27 21:23 +1000
          Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-27 15:22 +0200
            Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-28 05:10 +1000
            Re: sci.physics.relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-28 09:09 -0500
              Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 11:36 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 12:36 -0700
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 16:55 -0700
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 10:52 -0700
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-30 12:49 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-30 21:53 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 19:05 -0700
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 06:44 +0000
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:43 -0700
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-02 23:53 -0700
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 13:47 -0700
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 14:46 -0700
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 15:47 -0700
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:52 -0700
                                  Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-05 12:07 -0700
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 15:01 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 22:06 +0000
              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-28 11:08 +0200
                Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-06-29 12:18 +1000
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 18:49 +0200
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-01 13:05 +1000
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-03 01:02 +0200
                Re: sci.physics.relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-29 10:11 -0500
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:55 +0000
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 19:14 +0200
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-10 11:32 +1000
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-10 20:48 +0200
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-11 10:54 +0000
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 05:00 +0200
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-12 20:30 +1000
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 11:00 +0000
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:31 +0200
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:29 +0200
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 09:39 -0700
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 10:58 +0000
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:34 +0200
              Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-06-29 12:02 +1000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#463124

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:52:27 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
> > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
> > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
> > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > 
> > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
> > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
> > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > 
> > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > 
> > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > 
> > 
> > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> 
> Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> 
> That's how it is, end of story.

Then your expertise is wrong. For example: The whole purpose of the LT is to transform an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to the clock value on a moving clock wrt the observer. For example:
Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463126

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:52:27 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
>>>>>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
>>>>>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
>>>>>> "absolute" frame).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
>>>>>> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
>>>>>> are just words with no impact.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with
>>>>> the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more
>>>>> periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
>>>> 
>>>> Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
>>>> some kind of "time by convention".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Assertion is not a valid argument.
>> 
>> Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
>> time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
>> 
>> That's how it is, end of story.
> 
> Then your expertise is wrong. 

The one uneducated in physics is always the one that’s wrong. That’s you
Ken. Give it up. 

> For example: The whole purpose of the LT is to transform an interval of
> absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to the
> clock value on a moving clock wrt the observer. For example:
> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t)
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462877

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>> 
>> First of all, that is nonsense.
> 
> No, it is true, fundamentally.

No, it is not.
 
> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> "absolute" frame).

But this is not "Newtonian physics".
 
> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> are just words with no impact.

Incorrect.

>>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point
>>> to measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some
>>> arbitrary point and time.
> 
> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system.
> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.

You don’t say.
 
>> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
>> “theories of relativity” means.
> 
> You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of
> space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR,
> and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that
> phrase is essentially useless.

It is not I who is doing the “lumping together” here.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462915

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:08:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>> 
>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>> 
>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
> 
> No, it is not.

 
Please explain why you feel that they are the same? For example, do you
feel that nothing changed after Newton with Newtonian physics after his
death?


>  
>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
>> "absolute" frame).
> 
> But this is not "Newtonian physics".

How is it not "Newtonian physics"? 

Are you saying an observer using Netonian physics in different inertial
frame.

Imagine you have two observers A and B. 

A on Earth starts his clock now and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from
him and its velocity.

B is travelling in a rocket towards the planet. He starts his clock much
later and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from him and velocity.

All figures will be different and in Newtonian physics none will be wrong. 


>  
>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
>> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
>> are just words with no impact.
> 
> Incorrect.

Explain why you feel so?


> 
>>>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point
>>>> to measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>>>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some
>>>> arbitrary point and time.
>> 
>> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system.
>> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.
> 
> You don’t say.

So we agree that it is even more relative then I stated, how does this
support your argument of absolute?



>  
>>> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
>>> “theories of relativity” means.
>> 
>> You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of
>> space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR,
>> and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that
>> phrase is essentially useless.
> 
> It is not I who is doing the “lumping together” here.

Indeed, you are arguing that they are separate one is relative, and the
other is absolute.




> 
> 
> PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463071

SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:08:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
>> No, it is not.
>  
> Please explain why you feel that they are the same? For example, do you
> feel that nothing changed after Newton with Newtonian physics after his
> death?

Fundamentally, nothing changed.  The idea that something has changed is
based on the ignorance of what Newton actually said or on a
misinterpretation of what he actually meant, and therefore a misconception
of what Newtonian physics is.

For example, one can derive Newton’s second law of motion by application of
the post-Newtonian concept of the action and the Euler–Lagrange equation:

   L = T − U,

where L is the Lagrangian, T is the kinetic energy and U is the potential
energy.  Then for a single particle with a position with one coordinate we find

   L = m∕2 ẋ² − U(x)

  ∂L∕∂q_i − d∕dt ∂L∕∂q̇_i = 0
  ∂L∕∂q_i                = d∕dt ∂L∕∂q̇_i

  q₁ := x

                   ∂L∕∂x = d∕dt ∂L∕∂ẋ
                  −∂U∕∂x = d∕dt m ẋ
                  −∂U∕∂x = m d∕dt ẋ = d∕dt m v = d∕dt p = ṗ
                       F = m      ẍ = ̇p  (Newton’s version of the 2nd law)
                       F = m      a      (Euler’s  version of the 2nd law) ∎

And, for example, in all of this, it is *still* implied that there is only
one measure of time, t, that is the *same* for all abservers.

>>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
>>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
>>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
>>> "absolute" frame).
>> But this is not "Newtonian physics".
> 
> How is it not "Newtonian physics"? 

The idea that space and time are absolute in the way that Newton meant it
(as he has endeavoured to explain, expecting this misinterpretation of his
ideas) is inherent in Newtonian physics as it is being taught today.

> Are you saying an observer using Netonian physics in different inertial
> frame.

I do not know what that is, but it is not a sentence.

> Imagine you have two observers A and B. 
> 
> A on Earth starts his clock now and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from
> him and its velocity.
> 
> B is travelling in a rocket towards the planet. He starts his clock much
> later and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from him and velocity.
> 
> All figures will be different and in Newtonian physics none will be wrong. 

No.  I can only repeat that you do not understand what Newton said and
Newtonian physics says, as compared to *relativistic* physics.

>>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
>>> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
>>> are just words with no impact.
>> Incorrect.
> 
> Explain why you feel so?

The notions that Newton held about space and time are inherent in what is
being taught as Newtonian physics/mechanics, even when it is not taught
*explicitly* (but in fact it is, especially when one moves in teaching from
Newtonian to relativistic physics).

>>>>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point
>>>>> to measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>>>>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some
>>>>> arbitrary point and time.
>>> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system.
>>> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.
>> You don’t say.
> 
> So we agree that it is even more relative then I stated, 

No, we do not agree.  (“You don’t say” is an English idiom, a shorthand for
“tell me something that I do not know yet”.  Synonyms include “preaching to
the choir”.)

> how does this support your argument of absolute?

Newton assumed absolute space and time, and when we are discussing Newtonian
physics we are using these notions implicitly.

>>>> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
>>>> “theories of relativity” means.
>>> You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of
>>> space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR,
>>> and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that
>>> phrase is essentially useless.
>> It is not I who is doing the “lumping together” here.
> 
> Indeed, you are arguing that they are separate one is relative, and the
> other is absolute.
I have not argued such a gibberish or anything like it.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463135

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:49:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:08:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>>>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
>>> No, it is not.
>>  
>> Please explain why you feel that they are the same? For example, do you
>> feel that nothing changed after Newton with Newtonian physics after his
>> death?
> 
> Fundamentally, nothing changed.  The idea that something has changed is
> based on the ignorance of what Newton actually said or on a
> misinterpretation of what he actually meant, and therefore a misconception
> of what Newtonian physics is.
> 
> For example, one can derive Newton’s second law of motion by application of
> the post-Newtonian concept of the action and the Euler–Lagrange equation:
> 
>    L = T − U,
> 
> where L is the Lagrangian, T is the kinetic energy and U is the potential
> energy.  Then for a single particle with a position with one coordinate we find
> 
>    L = m∕2 ẋ² − U(x)
> 
>   ∂L∕∂q_i − d∕dt ∂L∕∂q̇_i = 0
>   ∂L∕∂q_i                = d∕dt ∂L∕∂q̇_i
> 
>   q₁ := x
> 
>                    ∂L∕∂x = d∕dt ∂L∕∂ẋ
>                   −∂U∕∂x = d∕dt m ẋ
>                   −∂U∕∂x = m d∕dt ẋ = d∕dt m v = d∕dt p = ṗ
>                        F = m      ẍ = ̇p  (Newton’s version of the 2nd law)
>                        F = m      a      (Euler’s  version of the 2nd law) ∎
> 
> And, for example, in all of this, it is *still* implied that there is only
> one measure of time, t, that is the *same* for all abservers.


 
For example?  ∂L, ∂x and dt means change; they not a measure of time and
space as as such. Once out into L,X and T observers with different origins
will put different figures into these variables.

 

> 
>>>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
>>>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
>>>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
>>>> "absolute" frame).
>>> But this is not "Newtonian physics".
>> 
>> How is it not "Newtonian physics"? 
> 
> The idea that space and time are absolute in the way that Newton meant it
> (as he has endeavoured to explain, expecting this misinterpretation of his
> ideas) is inherent in Newtonian physics as it is being taught today.
> 

(a)

It is certainly not being taught like that today. I just looked up my high
school physics textbook?

>> Are you saying an observer using Netonian physics in different inertial
>> frame.
> 
> I do not know what that is, but it is not a sentence.
> 
>> Imagine you have two observers A and B. 
>> 
>> A on Earth starts his clock now and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from
>> him and its velocity.
>> 
>> B is travelling in a rocket towards the planet. He starts his clock much
>> later and measures a planet X,Y,Z position from him and velocity.
>> 
>> All figures will be different and in Newtonian physics none will be wrong. 
> 
> No.  I can only repeat that you do not understand what Newton said and
> Newtonian physics says, 

How do you propose that the figures for time X,Y,Z and velocity be the same
for each observer? 

> as compared to *relativistic* physics.

We are not even talking Newton here as in this sense even galianian physics
is relativistic.

> 
>>>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
>>>> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
>>>> are just words with no impact.
>>> Incorrect.
>> 
>> Explain why you feel so?
> 
> The notions that Newton held about space and time are inherent in what is
> being taught as Newtonian physics/mechanics, even when it is not taught
> *explicitly* (but in fact it is, especially when one moves in teaching from
> Newtonian to relativistic physics).

see  (a) above

> 
>>>>>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point
>>>>>> to measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>>>>>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some
>>>>>> arbitrary point and time.
>>>> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system.
>>>> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.
>>> You don’t say.
>> 
>> So we agree that it is even more relative then I stated, 
> 
> No, we do not agree.  (“You don’t say” is an English idiom, a shorthand for
> “tell me something that I do not know yet”.  Synonyms include “preaching to
> the choir”.)


How does requiring an arbitary inertial coordinate system as well help your
case?

> 
>> how does this support your argument of absolute?
> 
> Newton assumed absolute space and time, and when we are discussing Newtonian
> physics we are using these notions implicitly.

Okay say I want to measure the position of the planet we talked about to
calculate its Newtonian orbit, where is the absolute space and time point
that I measure from?

> 
>>>>> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
>>>>> “theories of relativity” means.
>>>> You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of
>>>> space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR,
>>>> and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that
>>>> phrase is essentially useless.
>>> It is not I who is doing the “lumping together” here.
>> 
>> Indeed, you are arguing that they are separate one is relative, and the
>> other is absolute.
> I have not argued such a gibberish or anything like it.

I agree its gibberish but you did say it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463304

SolomonW wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:49:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> And, for example, in all of this, it is *still* implied that there is only
>> one measure of time, t, that is the *same* for all abservers.
>  
> For example?  ∂L, ∂x and dt means change; they not a measure of time and
> space as as such. Once out into L,X and T observers with different origins
> will put different figures into these variables.

Nonsense.

>>>>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
>>>>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
>>>>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
>>>>> "absolute" frame).
>>>> But this is not "Newtonian physics".
>>> How is it not "Newtonian physics"? 
>> The idea that space and time are absolute in the way that Newton meant it
>> (as he has endeavoured to explain, expecting this misinterpretation of his
>> ideas) is inherent in Newtonian physics as it is being taught today.
> 
> (a)
> 
> It is certainly not being taught like that today. I just looked up my high
> school physics textbook?

Which part of “inherent” did you not understand?

>> No.  I can only repeat that you do not understand what Newton said and
>> Newtonian physics says, 
> 
> How do you propose that the figures for time X,Y,Z and velocity be the same
> for each observer? 

“Time X, Y and Z”?

>> as compared to *relativistic* physics.
> 
> We are not even talking Newton here as in this sense even galianian physics
> is relativistic.

(_Galilean_.  Sloppy reader, sloppy writer, sloppy thinker.)

That is _not_ what “relativistic” means.   The term is solely used to tell
apart concepts that were introduced with, and circumstances that can only be
sufficiently exactly described using, the special and general theories of
relativity.

For example, when we are talking about “relativistic speeds”, we are talking
about relative speeds that are not much less than, or close or equal to, the
speed of light in vacuum.  And when we are talking about “relativistic
jets”, we are talking about plasma jets where particles move at relativistic
speeds; in that case, ionized matter is accelerated to speeds close to the
speed of light in vacuum.

>>>>>>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point
>>>>>>> to measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>>>>>>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some
>>>>>>> arbitrary point and time.
>>>>> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system.
>>>>> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.
>>>> You don’t say.
>>> So we agree that it is even more relative then I stated, 
>>
>> No, we do not agree.  (“You don’t say” is an English idiom, a shorthand for
>> “tell me something that I do not know yet”.  Synonyms include “preaching to
>> the choir”.)
> 
> How does requiring an arbitary inertial coordinate system as well help your
> case?

What case?

>>> how does this support your argument of absolute?
>>
>> Newton assumed absolute space and time, and when we are discussing Newtonian
>> physics we are using these notions implicitly.
> 
> Okay say I want to measure the position of the planet we talked about to
> calculate its Newtonian orbit, where is the absolute space and time point
> that I measure from?

You are confused.  Nobody has claimed what you do, in particular not Newton.

>>> […] you are arguing that they are separate one is relative, and the
>>> other is absolute.
>> I have not argued such a gibberish or anything like it.
> 
> I agree its gibberish but you did say it. 

No, I did not; you did.  You are very confused.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462941

On 6/28/18 4:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
> 
> No, it is not.

Yes, it is. You just don't understand the lingo, AS ACTUALLY USED BY 
PHYSICISTS.

>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
>> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
>> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
>> "absolute" frame).
> 
> But this is not "Newtonian physics".

Yes, it is, AS THESE WORDS ARE USED BY PHYSICISTS.

Every physicist has taken courses on Newtonian Mechanics. None of them 
use the "absolute space and time" of Newton, but do use the laws he 
articulated, in arbitrary inertial frames.

	Note that "inertial frame" in NM is different from what
	the same phrase means in SR, and also different from
	what it means in GR. The nomenclature has evolved,
	including the adjective "Newtonian".

	Evolution of nomenclature is common. So in any discussion
	one must keep track of the theoretical context. Moreover,
	the technical vocabulary shares words with everyday usage,
	often giving them different meanings. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT.

Note that Newton's statements of the laws apply only in inertial frames; 
other mathematical formulations of the same laws by Lagrange, Hamilton, 
and Jacobi are valid in all coordinates -- as they apply the same laws 
of physics, they are all lumped together as Newtonian physics (even 
though their equations are VERY different). Note that gravity is 
included, but we now know that it is an approximation to GR; indeed all 
of Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR (SR is a subset of GR 
without gravity). Electrodynamics is explicitly NOT included, nor are 
the weak and strong interactions.

>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
>> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
>> are just words with no impact.
> 
> Incorrect.

Nope -- my statement is correct. Again you show that you do not 
understand the lingo AS ACTUALLY USED BY PHYSICISTS.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462956

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/28/18 4:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
>> 
>> No, it is not.
> 
> Yes, it is. You just don't understand the lingo, AS ACTUALLY USED BY
> PHYSICISTS.

You are indulgent. He doesn't understand lingo of any kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463080

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/28/18 4:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
>>>> First of all, that is nonsense.
>>> No, it is true, fundamentally.
>> No, it is not.
> 
> Yes, it is. You just don't understand the lingo, AS ACTUALLY USED BY 
> PHYSICISTS.

Not at all.

>>> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know
>>> that absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the
>>> Newtonian laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a
>>> single "absolute" frame).
>> 
>> But this is not "Newtonian physics".
> 
> Yes, it is, AS THESE WORDS ARE USED BY PHYSICISTS.

No, the notions of absolute space and time are implied in Newtonian physics
as being taught, and sometimes (especially when one compares Newtonian to
relavistic physics) explicitly invoked.  You just have forgotten it or not
realized it yet.

> Every physicist has taken courses on Newtonian Mechanics.

You don’t say.

> None of them  use the "absolute space and time" of Newton, […]

Yes, they do, even if only implicitly.  You are just ignorant of what Newton
meant.

Since ignorance of what Newton said and meant appears to be abundant here
(despite its being easily found on the Web), it appears imperative, and
apparently it is incumbent upon me, to quote him (from the 1729 Motte
translation of the «Principia», easily found in Wikipedia):

| Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
| flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and
| external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means
| of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time […]”

| Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external,
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable
| dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by
| its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space
| […] Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place
| into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place
| into another […]”

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time#Newton>

(markings by me)

> [things I already know]

>>> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and
>>> time" have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics.
>>> IOW: they are just words with no impact.
>> Incorrect.
> 
> Nope -- my statement is correct.

No, it is not.

> Again you show that you do not understand the lingo AS ACTUALLY USED BY
> PHYSICISTS.

No, instead you are arguing out of ignorance or misconception of what Newton
meant, and the notions that Newtonian physics employs *as it is being taught
today*.

For example, the Galilean transformation that is being taught in the
“Newtonian physics“ section of “Classical Mechanics” has

  t' = t.

If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant it,
I do not know what is.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464005

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:14:29 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> For example, the Galilean transformation that is being taught in the
> “Newtonian physics“ section of “Classical Mechanics” has
> 
>   t' = t.
> 
> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant it,
> I do not know what is.

It actually is 

t' = t + C

The C is an arbitary constant 


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464099

SolomonW wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:14:29 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> For example, the Galilean transformation that is being taught in the
>> “Newtonian physics“ section of “Classical Mechanics” has
>>
>>   t' = t.
>>
>> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant it,
>> I do not know what is.
> 
> It actually is 
> 
> t' = t + C
> 
> The C is an arbitary constant 

Utter nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464154

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant
>>> it, I do not know what is.
>> 
>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
> 
> Utter nonsense.

Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464203

The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their staggering ignorance as
"Ování Bodrého" <urh@nwroen.ol>:
                     ^^^^^^^^^
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant
>>>> it, I do not know what is.
>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.

It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis.
*There is no integration.*

  t ^      t' ^
    :         :
    :         :       (x, t)
    :- - - - -+- - -+ (x', t') = (x − v t, t)
    :         :     .
    :         :     .  ---> v
    :         :     .
    :         :     .
    '-------->'-----+---->
    :        x      :  x'
    :<------------->:
           v t

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464207

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 05:00:54 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their staggering ignorance as
> "Ování Bodrého" <urh@nwroen.ol>:
>                      ^^^^^^^^^
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant
>>>>> it, I do not know what is.
>>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>>> Utter nonsense.
>> 
>> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.
> 
> It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis.
> *There is no integration.*
> 
>   t ^      t' ^
>     :         :
>     :         :       (x, t)
>     :- - - - -+- - -+ (x', t') = (x − v t, t)
>     :         :     .
>     :         :     .  ---> v
>     :         :     .
>     :         :     .
>     '-------->'-----+---->
>     :        x      :  x'
>     :<------------->:
>            v t


No see the equations and discussions here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newtonian_mechanics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464211

SolomonW wrote:

>>>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>> 
>>> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.
>> 
>> It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis. *There
>> is no integration.*
> 
> No see the equations and discussions here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newtonian_mechanics

He is never reading wikipedia, he is writing wikipedia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464224

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Olin Hayton" <toa@nahslao.nh>:
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.
>>>
>>> It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis. *There
>>> is no integration.*
>>
>> No see the equations and discussions here
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newtonian_mechanics
> 
> He is never reading wikipedia, he is writing wikipedia.

I am doing both; it is *also* therefore that I know that “SolomonW”’s
reference does NOT substantiate “SolomonW”’s claim.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464223

SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 05:00:54 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their staggering ignorance as
>> "Ování Bodrého" <urh@nwroen.ol>:
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> If [t0 = t] is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant
>>>>>> it, I do not know what is.
>>>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.
>>
>> It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis.
>> *There is no integration.*
>>
>>   t ^      t' ^
>>     :         :
>>     :         :       (x, t)
>>     :- - - - -+- - -+ (x', t') = (x − v t, t)
>>     :         :     .
>>     :         :     .  ---> v
>>     :         :     .
>>     :         :     .
>>     '-------->'-----+---->
>>     :        x      :  x'
>>     :<------------->:
>>            v t
> 
> No see the equations and discussions here
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newtonian_mechanics

    [Note that “This section does not cite any sources.”]

As you can read there, your C (which is NOT used there) would NOT be an
integration constant (as there is no integration there), but equivalent to
the temporal *shift of the origin* of one coordinate system relative to the
other:

   t ^      t' ^
     :         :
     :         :       (x, t)
     :- - - - -+- - -+ (x', t') = (x − v t, t)
     :         :     .
     :         :     .
  t₀ +         '-----+----->
     :               .     x'
     :               .
     '---------------+----->
     :         :           x
     :<------->:
         v t

    [In my previous diagram, either the indicated distance was too long
     or should have been labeled “x' + v t” instead of “v t”.]

In the usual "transformation",

  t = t',

it is implied that there is no such shift, i.e. the origins coincide (your
C = t₀ = 0).

    [Nobody who knows what they are talking about uses “C” there.]

Physically this means that observers that are moving relative to each other,
who want to know the spatial and temporal coordinates of an object in their
coordinate system (x', t') given the coordinates of that object in the
other’s coordinate system (x, t), synchronize their clocks before the motion
starts.

The coordinate transformation discussed here is the *Galilean*
transformation of time of *Newtonian* (pre-relativistic) mechanics (NM).

ObRelativity:

The difference between NM and relativistic mechanics here is that in NM
formerly synchronized clocks *stay* synchronized when they are moving.

Because the *Lorentz* transformation of time of *relativistic* mechanics is

  t' = γ (t − v∕c² x) = (t − v∕c² x)∕√(1 − v²∕c²)

instead.  As you can see, if a clock is moving along the x-axis (x ≠ 0,
v ≠ 0 → t' < t) it shows a *different* (earlier) time t' than the time t
that a clock shows that is not moving along the x-axis (x = 0, v = 0);
the difference in *time* between the clocks is the greater the farther
they have moved apart (the greater the absolute value of x is).

    [As you can also see, if v ≪ c, then the Lorentz transformation of
     special relativity (SR) is approximated well by the Galilean
     transformation of NM.  Such reducibility of a newer theory (here: SR)
     to an older one that is well confirmed in its domain (here: NM) is
     always strong indication that the new theory is correct.  (And this
     is where crackpot "theories" usually fail.)]

That a "moving" clock shows an *earlier* time than a clock "at rest" is a
relativistic phenomenon called *time dilation* (sometimes here: TD).

That a "moving" clock shows a time *the earlier the farther it is away in
the direction of motion* is a consequence of the relativistic phenomenon
called *the relativity of simultaneity* (often here: RoS).  It is usually
succinctly described as “leading clocks lag”.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464226

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 11:29:30 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:

> > No see the equations and discussions here
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newtonian_mechanics
> 
>     [Note that “This section does not cite any sources.”]

I'll see if I can find reliable sources for the above section so that
the {{unreferenced section}} template can be removed. It's not 
controversial material.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464210

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their staggering ignorance as

This is not even English. "their"??

> "Ování Bodrého" <urh@nwroen.ol>:
>                      ^^^^^^^^^
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> If that is not *evidently* a notion of absolute time as Newton meant
>>>>> it, I do not know what is.
>>>> It actually is t' = t + C The C is an arbitary constant
>>> Utter nonsense.
>> 
>> Not after an integration. That constant is a required essential.
> 
> It is a *coordinate transformation* – *algebra*, _not_ analysis. *There
> is no integration.*

This neither. Cannot parse. You abuse both the concept and the punctuation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web