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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360762 > unrolled thread

QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ?

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

Contents

  QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 12:21 -0700
    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 13:33 -0700
      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-14 22:44 +0200
        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:22 -0700
          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-15 07:38 +0200
            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:41 -0700
              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 17:22 +0200
                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 09:10 -0700
                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Jason Burchett <jasb@h3ipotal.org> - 2015-08-17 16:19 +0000
                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 18:37 +0200
                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 12:21 -0700
                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-17 22:40 +0200
                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 10:35 -0700
                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-18 20:27 +0200
                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:10 -0700
                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-18 22:44 +0200
                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:07 -0700
                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 17:46 +0200
                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 10:41 -0700
                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 20:00 +0200
                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 12:21 -0700
                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-19 19:48 +0000
                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-19 22:32 +0200
                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 14:30 -0700
                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 16:09 -0700
                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:18 -0700
                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 05:53 -0700
                                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 08:06 -0700
                                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 08:52 -0700
                                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 14:24 -0700
                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 18:32 -0400
                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:56 -0700
                                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 10:35 -0700
                                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 11:39 -0700
                                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-21 15:32 -0500
                                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 22:36 +0200
                                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 23:02 +0200
                                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 14:07 -0700
                                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 16:58 -0700
                                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-27 10:49 -0500
                                                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 13:05 -0700
                                                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:01 -0700
                                                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 04:27 -0700
                                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 22:03 -0700
                                                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-29 18:10 -0500
                                                                        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 15:47 -0700
                                                                          Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-04 12:44 -0500
                                                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-04 19:52 +0000
                                                                            Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 15:15 -0700
                                                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-05 01:15 +0000
                                                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 09:49 -0500
                                                                                Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:47 -0700
                                                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 12:31 -0500
                                                                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:19 +0000
                                                                                    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:48 -0700
                                                                                      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 15:48 -0700
                                                  Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 20:25 -0400
                                              Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-20 17:45 +0200
    Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 14:40 -0700
      Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-15 23:23 -0700
        Re: QU'EST-CE QUE L'ESPACE-TEMPS ? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-16 01:17 -0700

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

#361309

El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 14:00:13 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:236ec34a-ae9e-47d7-97d2-ab4a3e24ef47@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> > |The transform derived in Section 3 of the 1905 June 30 paper is NOT
> > |a Galilean one.
> >
> > You finally put in evidence you can't read. As expecten from a
> > relativistic fanatic.
> > I'm asking: does GPS ECI time indicated by GPS clocks fulfill galilean
> > transform?
> >
> |GPS ECI time corresponds to the 1905 Einstein time definition for a
> 
> DO CLOCK INDICATIONS (I. E. TIME, AS DEFINED BY GREAT GURU)
> ON GPS FULFILL THE EQUATION t'=t (I. E. GALILEAN TRANSFORM)?
> You know they do, I know they do.
> Say goodbye to your Ingenious Shit.
>
According to the 1905 Einstein time definition corresponding to some
stationary system, in each one of the corresponding stationary space
points we can assume the existence of a clock at rest synchronized
with "the time of the stationary system".

Read in Section 1 (almost at the end):

[The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with
the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event,
this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ]

And a little ahead at the end:

[ It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks
in the stationary system,  and the time now defined being appropriate
to the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary
system". ]

This means that at any instant t of "the time of the stationary
system", each stationary clock at each stationary space point is
showing the same time t.

Can you explain me from where do you take your t’=t, saying that
it is a "Galilean transform"?

Who give you the right to declare the time that 1905 Einstein define
for some stationary system equal to the Galilean time of all the
Universe?

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) 
 
> 
> |very specific stationary system , the Newtonian center of mass
> |system of all Earth's parts (including today the GPS satellites). It
> |has no relation at all with a Galilean transform that manages a
> |unique time for all the Universe. Has no sense at all then to say,
> |as you do, that GPS ECI time indicated by GPS clocks fulfill
> |Galilean transform.
> 
> And your insane "would be" mumble won't change anyting.

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

#361312

1905Rafael wrote:

> Maciej Woźniak  escribió:

We are in full agreement that no serious physicist or historian
will ever support your revisionist malarkey. We are also in total
agreement that attempting to market your malarkey to the dregs of
usenet is about your only option left. It's pathetic, but funny.


         ---Tim Shuba---

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

#361322

Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:8573d701-e503-493c-bf14-00b9f2acd650@googlegroups.com...

El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 14:00:13 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak 
escribió:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:236ec34a-ae9e-47d7-97d2-ab4a3e24ef47@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > |The transform derived in Section 3 of the 1905 June 30 paper is NOT
> > |a Galilean one.
> >
> > You finally put in evidence you can't read. As expecten from a
> > relativistic fanatic.
> > I'm asking: does GPS ECI time indicated by GPS clocks fulfill galilean
> > transform?
> >
> |GPS ECI time corresponds to the 1905 Einstein time definition for a
>
> DO CLOCK INDICATIONS (I. E. TIME, AS DEFINED BY GREAT GURU)
> ON GPS FULFILL THE EQUATION t'=t (I. E. GALILEAN TRANSFORM)?
> You know they do, I know they do.
> Say goodbye to your Ingenious Shit.
>
|According to the 1905 Einstein time definition corresponding to some

:)
Do they fulfill the simple equation above, or don't they?
They do. With precision of acceptable error, of course.
That means, time (as defined by your guru) observed on
GPS fulfill galilean transform.
Any whole universe mysticism has nothing to do with it.

Time is a coordinate, you know. What do you think we
usually create a coordinate for?
A) for amusement of physicists
B) for coordinating something
A or rather B, what do you think?

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

#361327

El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 16:32:20 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:8573d701-e503-493c-bf14-00b9f2acd650@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 14:00:13 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak 
> escribió:
> > Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:236ec34a-ae9e-47d7-97d2-ab4a3e24ef47@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > > |The transform derived in Section 3 of the 1905 June 30 paper is NOT
> > > |a Galilean one.
> > >
> > > You finally put in evidence you can't read. As expecten from a
> > > relativistic fanatic.
> > > I'm asking: does GPS ECI time indicated by GPS clocks fulfill galilean
> > > transform?
> > >
> > |GPS ECI time corresponds to the 1905 Einstein time definition for a
> >
> > DO CLOCK INDICATIONS (I. E. TIME, AS DEFINED BY GREAT GURU)
> > ON GPS FULFILL THE EQUATION t'=t (I. E. GALILEAN TRANSFORM)?
> > You know they do, I know they do.
> > Say goodbye to your Ingenious Shit.
> >
> |According to the 1905 Einstein time definition corresponding to some
> 
> :)
> Do they fulfill the simple equation above, or don't they?
> They do. With precision of acceptable error, of course.
> That means, time (as defined by your guru) observed on
> GPS fulfill galilean transform.
> Any whole universe mysticism has nothing to do with it.
>
You only erase what I write and ask, explaining absolutely nothing
and continue attributing erroneously to Einstein things not existing
at all in the 1905 text.

> Time is a coordinate, you know. What do you think we
> usually create a coordinate for?
> A) for amusement of physicists
> B) for coordinating something
> A or rather B, what do you think?

Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
and space separated from time.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

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

#361339

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>
> Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> Euclidean geometry,

Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is DEFINITELY
NOT Euclidean.

> Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations

Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
text REFUTES the GT.

> and space separated from time.
> 
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Not really, x' = f(x,t) and t' = g(t,x).  You are pettifogging.

Gary

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

#361367

El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> > Euclidean geometry,
> 
> Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is DEFINITELY
> NOT Euclidean.
>
Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
the Section 3 where the transform is derived:

[ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
Translation Relatively to the Former ]

Read the first sentence:

[Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
one another,  and issuing from a point. ]

Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
its three Cartesian co-ordinates.
 
> > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
> 
> Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
> text REFUTES the GT.
>
We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
(unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
(beginning of Section 1).
 
> > and space separated from time.
> > 
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> 
> Not really, x' = f(x,t) and t' = g(t,x).  You are pettifogging.
>
When I say "space separated from time", I am only referring that
time is not considered a co-ordinate (as in the Section 3 title,
where after the three space co-ordinates the time is added). We
must wait 1907 Minkowski for something like that.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Gary

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

#361369

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>
> El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > >
> > > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> > > Euclidean geometry,
> > 
> > Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is
> > DEFINITELY NOT Euclidean.
> >
> Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
> Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
> includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
> entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
> that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
> the Section 3 where the transform is derived:
> 
> [ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
> from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
> Translation Relatively to the Former ]
> 
> Read the first sentence:
> 
> [Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
> two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
> one another,  and issuing from a point. ]
> 
> Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
> co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
> its three Cartesian co-ordinates.

The definition of a coordinate is "equal in rank, quality, or significance."
If we plan to meet each other, we must specify a position x, y, z, but
designating a time is of equal significance or we will not meet.

Furthermore, Einstein presented time on an equal basis with the spatial
coordinates in describing a spherical wavefront of light as

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2

> > > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
> > 
> > Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
> > text REFUTES the GT.
> >
> We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
> 1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
> However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
> (unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
> co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
> (beginning of Section 1).

But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial frame meets
the criteria.

> > > and space separated from time.
> > > 
> > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> > 
> > Not really, x' = f(x,t) and t' = g(t,x).  You are pettifogging.
> >
> When I say "space separated from time", I am only referring that
> time is not considered a co-ordinate (as in the Section 3 title,
> where after the three space co-ordinates the time is added). We
> must wait 1907 Minkowski for something like that.
> 
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

The seeds of Minkowski are in the 1905 paper.  Goldstein in his "Classical
Mechanics" textbook points out that the LT looks very much like a rotation
transform, which types of transform were well-known prior to 1905.  So I
believe that Minkowski's space-time is an apt analogy of the LT.

But I am still a bit of a maverick in believing that QM is more basic
than relativity as indicated by initial steps into quantum gravity theory.

Gary

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

#361377

El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 8:53:26 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> > El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> > > > Euclidean geometry,
> > > 
> > > Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is
> > > DEFINITELY NOT Euclidean.
> > >
> > Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
> > Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
> > includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
> > entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
> > that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
> > the Section 3 where the transform is derived:
> > 
> > [ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
> > from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
> > Translation Relatively to the Former ]
> > 
> > Read the first sentence:
> > 
> > [Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
> > two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
> > one another,  and issuing from a point. ]
> > 
> > Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
> > co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
> > its three Cartesian co-ordinates.
> 
> The definition of a coordinate is "equal in rank, quality, or significance."
> If we plan to meet each other, we must specify a position x, y, z, but
> designating a time is of equal significance or we will not meet.
> 
> Furthermore, Einstein presented time on an equal basis with the spatial
> coordinates in describing a spherical wavefront of light as
> 
> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2
> 
> > > > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
> > > 
> > > Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
> > > text REFUTES the GT.
> > >
> > We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
> > 1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
> > However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
> > (unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
> > co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
> > (beginning of Section 1).
> 
> But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial frame meets
> the criteria.
>
Well, if we take into account that any Newtonian center of mass
system (corresponding to any adequate body set, like the Solar
system) meets the criteria with the equations of Newtonian
mechanics holding good in it, we can take for granted that the
1905 Einstein "stationary system" is NOT unique.

What I am now not so sure is that all the inertial frames you
mention meets the 1905 criteria. You must take into account tha
the today inertial frame concept (including the equivalence of
all of them) does not exist yet in 1905. What do you think about?

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> > > > and space separated from time.
> > > > 
> > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> > > 
> > > Not really, x' = f(x,t) and t' = g(t,x).  You are pettifogging.
> > >
> > When I say "space separated from time", I am only referring that
> > time is not considered a co-ordinate (as in the Section 3 title,
> > where after the three space co-ordinates the time is added). We
> > must wait 1907 Minkowski for something like that.
> > 
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> 
> The seeds of Minkowski are in the 1905 paper.  Goldstein in his "Classical
> Mechanics" textbook points out that the LT looks very much like a rotation
> transform, which types of transform were well-known prior to 1905.  So I
> believe that Minkowski's space-time is an apt analogy of the LT.
> 
> But I am still a bit of a maverick in believing that QM is more basic
> than relativity as indicated by initial steps into quantum gravity theory.
> 
> Gary

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

#361380

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:06:30 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>
> El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 8:53:26 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > >
> > > El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> > > > > Euclidean geometry,
> > > > 
> > > > Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is
> > > > DEFINITELY NOT Euclidean.
> > > >
> > > Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
> > > Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
> > > includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
> > > entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
> > > that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
> > > the Section 3 where the transform is derived:
> > > 
> > > [ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
> > > from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
> > > Translation Relatively to the Former ]
> > > 
> > > Read the first sentence:
> > > 
> > > [Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
> > > two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
> > > one another,  and issuing from a point. ]
> > > 
> > > Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
> > > co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
> > > its three Cartesian co-ordinates.
> > 
> > The definition of a coordinate is "equal in rank, quality, or significance."
> > If we plan to meet each other, we must specify a position x, y, z, but
> > designating a time is of equal significance or we will not meet.
> > 
> > Furthermore, Einstein presented time on an equal basis with the spatial
> > coordinates in describing a spherical wavefront of light as
> > 
> > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2
> > 
> > > > > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
> > > > 
> > > > Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
> > > > text REFUTES the GT.
> > > >
> > > We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
> > > 1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
> > > However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
> > > (unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
> > > co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
> > > (beginning of Section 1).
> > 
> > But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial frame meets
> > the criteria.
> >
> Well, if we take into account that any Newtonian center of mass
> system (corresponding to any adequate body set, like the Solar
> system) meets the criteria with the equations of Newtonian
> mechanics holding good in it, we can take for granted that the
> 1905 Einstein "stationary system" is NOT unique.

Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
nonsense like "center of mass."

> What I am now not so sure is that all the inertial frames you
> mention meets the 1905 criteria. You must take into account tha
> the today inertial frame concept (including the equivalence of
> all of them) does not exist yet in 1905. What do you think about?
> 
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

I disagree.  The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since
Newton's laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....

The GT is a subset of generalized inertial frames wherein space and time
are linear and homogeneous.  In general,

x' = G*(x + H*t)
t' = A*(t + B*x)

Applying Galilean relativity (i.e., x'/t' = -v when x/t = 0 and x'/t' = -v
when x/t = 0 and for all t), the general transform becomes

x' = G*(x - v*t)
t' = G*(t + B*x)

Assuming universal time results in the GT.  Assuming a speed limit instead
of universal time results in the LT.  These are purely kinematic transforms
and do not rely on Newton's law of motion.  Dynamics is a different story
which E addressed later in his paper.

Gary

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

#361396

El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 11:52:42 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:06:30 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> > El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 8:53:26 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > >
> > > > El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
> > > > > > Euclidean geometry,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is
> > > > > DEFINITELY NOT Euclidean.
> > > > >
> > > > Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
> > > > Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
> > > > includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
> > > > entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
> > > > that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
> > > > the Section 3 where the transform is derived:
> > > > 
> > > > [ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
> > > > from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
> > > > Translation Relatively to the Former ]
> > > > 
> > > > Read the first sentence:
> > > > 
> > > > [Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
> > > > two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
> > > > one another,  and issuing from a point. ]
> > > > 
> > > > Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
> > > > co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
> > > > its three Cartesian co-ordinates.
> > > 
> > > The definition of a coordinate is "equal in rank, quality, or significance."
> > > If we plan to meet each other, we must specify a position x, y, z, but
> > > designating a time is of equal significance or we will not meet.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, Einstein presented time on an equal basis with the spatial
> > > coordinates in describing a spherical wavefront of light as
> > > 
> > > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2
> > > 
> > > > > > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
> > > > > text REFUTES the GT.
> > > > >
> > > > We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
> > > > 1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
> > > > However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
> > > > (unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
> > > > co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
> > > > (beginning of Section 1).
> > > 
> > > But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial frame meets
> > > the criteria.
> > >
> > Well, if we take into account that any Newtonian center of mass
> > system (corresponding to any adequate body set, like the Solar
> > system) meets the criteria with the equations of Newtonian
> > mechanics holding good in it, we can take for granted that the
> > 1905 Einstein "stationary system" is NOT unique.
> 
> Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
> first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
> nonsense like "center of mass."
>
I say nothing about an "inertial frame", but about a 1905 Einstein
"stationary system".

E's first postulate as it appears in the Introduction:

[ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]

What you denote as "extraneous nonsense" appears since Corollary IV
of 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM), derived from his three Axioms
or Laws of Motion, denoted then "center of gravity".  Remember that
1905 Einstein defines "stationary system" as a system of coordinates
in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 
 
> > What I am now not so sure is that all the inertial frames you
> > mention meets the 1905 criteria. You must take into account tha
> > the today inertial frame concept (including the equivalence of
> > all of them) does not exist yet in 1905. What do you think about?
> > 
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> 
> I disagree.  The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since
> Newton's laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
> frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....
>
You write very clear in a previous post (with my total agreement):

Gary: [Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.
The 1905 text REFUTES the GT. ]

You also write very clear in a posterior post (with my alert about
the use of the "inertial frame" concept in 1905 when it does not
exist yet):

Gary: [ But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial
frame meets the criteria. ]

And now are you the one saying that GT defines inertial frames? How
can you use a REFUTED GT to define an "inertial frame", a concept
that you seem identifying with the 1905 Einstein "stationary system"?
 
> The GT is a subset of generalized inertial frames wherein space and time
> are linear and homogeneous.  In general,
> 
> x' = G*(x + H*t)
> t' = A*(t + B*x)
> 
> Applying Galilean relativity (i.e., x'/t' = -v when x/t = 0 and x'/t' = -v
> when x/t = 0 and for all t), the general transform becomes
> 
> x' = G*(x - v*t)
> t' = G*(t + B*x)
> 
> Assuming universal time results in the GT.  Assuming a speed limit instead
> of universal time results in the LT.  These are purely kinematic transforms
> and do not rely on Newton's law of motion.  Dynamics is a different story
> which E addressed later in his paper.
>
All the theory expressed in your last equations was developed AFTER
the radical changes introduced by 1907 Minkowski, particularly the
space-time concept, not representing then the original 1905 Einstein
theory that I usually denote as 1905R, to distinguish it from the
different Special Relativity (SR) of our days.

In 1905R, 1686NM continue holding good, including the gravitational
equations, what permit the development of a 1905R Gravity different
from General Relativity (GR), but  much simpler than it. 1905R
relativistic gravitational equations exist  for the general
gravitational n-body problem, applied already to the principal
bodies of the Solar system with extraordinary accuracy better than
10E-11.

A very surprising derivation from 1905R is the
gravitational/inertial mass ratio equal to the 1905R relativistic
gamma factor, with an inertial mass that is equal to a variable
rest mass that measures potential energy. Some GR effects are
already explained with 1905R, as the gravitational red shift and
Mercury's perihelion one, including the GPS atomic clocks time rate
changes due to changes on velocity and gravitational potential.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Gary

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

#361398

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
<rvalls162@gmail.com> wrote:

>El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 11:52:42 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
>> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:06:30 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> >
>> > El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 8:53:26 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:18:45 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > El miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015, 19:09:07 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where we find only
>> > > > > > Euclidean geometry,
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Completely false.  Einstein derives the Lorentz transform which is
>> > > > > DEFINITELY NOT Euclidean.
>> > > > >
>> > > > Your very right, the transform that 1905 Einstein derives in
>> > > > Section 3 of his June 30 paper is NOT Euclidean, because it
>> > > > includes the managing of time that is DEFINITELY NOT an Euclidean
>> > > > entity. However, time is NOT a coordinate in the 1905 text, where
>> > > > that denotation refers only to the Euclidean space. Let us analyze
>> > > > the Section 3 where the transform is derived:
>> > > > 
>> > > > [ Section 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times
>> > > > from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of
>> > > > Translation Relatively to the Former ]
>> > > > 
>> > > > Read the first sentence:
>> > > > 
>> > > > [Let us in "stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e.
>> > > > two systems,  each of three rigid material lines,  perpendicular to
>> > > > one another,  and issuing from a point. ]
>> > > > 
>> > > > Since the beginning, it is completely clear that time is NOT a
>> > > > co-ordinate, a denotation only used for the Euclidean space with
>> > > > its three Cartesian co-ordinates.
>> > > 
>> > > The definition of a coordinate is "equal in rank, quality, or significance."
>> > > If we plan to meet each other, we must specify a position x, y, z, but
>> > > designating a time is of equal significance or we will not meet.
>> > > 
>> > > Furthermore, Einstein presented time on an equal basis with the spatial
>> > > coordinates in describing a spherical wavefront of light as
>> > > 
>> > > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c*t)^2
>> > > 
>> > > > > > Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.  The 1905
>> > > > > text REFUTES the GT.
>> > > > >
>> > > > We are in total agreement. I am not the one pretending here that the
>> > > > 1905 Einstein time definition is related with the Galilean Transform.
>> > > > However, remember that 1905 Einstein denotes "stationary system"
>> > > > (unique type of entity where he defines a time for it) a system of
>> > > > co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good
>> > > > (beginning of Section 1).
>> > > 
>> > > But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial frame meets
>> > > the criteria.
>> > >
>> > Well, if we take into account that any Newtonian center of mass
>> > system (corresponding to any adequate body set, like the Solar
>> > system) meets the criteria with the equations of Newtonian
>> > mechanics holding good in it, we can take for granted that the
>> > 1905 Einstein "stationary system" is NOT unique.
>> 
>> Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
>> first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
>> nonsense like "center of mass."
>>
>I say nothing about an "inertial frame", but about a 1905 Einstein
>"stationary system".
>
>E's first postulate as it appears in the Introduction:
>
>[ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
>frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
>
>What you denote as "extraneous nonsense" appears since Corollary IV
>of 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM), derived from his three Axioms
>or Laws of Motion, denoted then "center of gravity".  Remember that
>1905 Einstein defines "stationary system" as a system of coordinates
>in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 
> 
>> > What I am now not so sure is that all the inertial frames you
>> > mention meets the 1905 criteria. You must take into account tha
>> > the today inertial frame concept (including the equivalence of
>> > all of them) does not exist yet in 1905. What do you think about?
>> > 
>> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>> 
>> I disagree.  The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since
>> Newton's laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
>> frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....
>>
>You write very clear in a previous post (with my total agreement):
>
>Gary: [Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.
>The 1905 text REFUTES the GT. ]
>
>You also write very clear in a posterior post (with my alert about
>the use of the "inertial frame" concept in 1905 when it does not
>exist yet):
>
>Gary: [ But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial
>frame meets the criteria. ]
>
>And now are you the one saying that GT defines inertial frames? How
>can you use a REFUTED GT to define an "inertial frame", a concept
>that you seem identifying with the 1905 Einstein "stationary system"?
> 
>> The GT is a subset of generalized inertial frames wherein space and time
>> are linear and homogeneous.  In general,
>> 
>> x' = G*(x + H*t)
>> t' = A*(t + B*x)
>> 
>> Applying Galilean relativity (i.e., x'/t' = -v when x/t = 0 and x'/t' = -v
>> when x/t = 0 and for all t), the general transform becomes
>> 
>> x' = G*(x - v*t)
>> t' = G*(t + B*x)
>> 
>> Assuming universal time results in the GT.  Assuming a speed limit instead
>> of universal time results in the LT.  These are purely kinematic transforms
>> and do not rely on Newton's law of motion.  Dynamics is a different story
>> which E addressed later in his paper.
>>
>All the theory expressed in your last equations was developed AFTER
>the radical changes introduced by 1907 Minkowski, particularly the
>space-time concept, not representing then the original 1905 Einstein
>theory that I usually denote as 1905R, to distinguish it from the
>different Special Relativity (SR) of our days.
>
>In 1905R, 1686NM continue holding good, including the gravitational
>equations, what permit the development of a 1905R Gravity different
>from General Relativity (GR), but  much simpler than it. 1905R
>relativistic gravitational equations exist  for the general
>gravitational n-body problem, applied already to the principal
>bodies of the Solar system with extraordinary accuracy better than
>10E-11.
>
>A very surprising derivation from 1905R is the
>gravitational/inertial mass ratio equal to the 1905R relativistic
>gamma factor, with an inertial mass that is equal to a variable
>rest mass that measures potential energy. Some GR effects are
>already explained with 1905R, as the gravitational red shift and
>Mercury's perihelion one, including the GPS atomic clocks time rate
>changes due to changes on velocity and gravitational potential.
>
>RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

          You will never get anywhere with this concept,
because the term and entity "gravitational mass" is
strictly a Newtonian term for an imaginary entity 
that requires Euclidean space, that term only 
devised by Newton (or before Newton) to try
to explain why matter appears to be attracted
to matter.

        Any model that does not employ "attraction"
as the mechanism of gravitation does NOT  need
the term gravitational mass.

        In some  models the gravitational redshift
and blueshift can be explained as simply Doppler,
and gravitational potential is simply the math
that is able to assign numbers to the relative
positions and motions, nothing more.

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

#361410

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:24:14 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>
> El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 11:52:42 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> >
> > Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
> > first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
> > nonsense like "center of mass."
> >
> I say nothing about an "inertial frame", but about a 1905 Einstein
> "stationary system".

Same thing.  You are trying to pettifog the issue.

> E's first postulate as it appears in the Introduction:
> 
> [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
> 
> What you denote as "extraneous nonsense" appears since Corollary IV
> of 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM), derived from his three Axioms
> or Laws of Motion, denoted then "center of gravity".  Remember that
> 1905 Einstein defines "stationary system" as a system of coordinates
> in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 

He didn't mean it to refer to Newton's law of gravity.  He already knew
that gravity could not be fit into SR.  Newtonian gravity must travel
with infinite speed, and E knew full well that that was not possible.
And you are pettifogging again by calling it "center of gravity."  The
prober term is "center of mass."

> > The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since Newton's
> > laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
> > frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....
> >
> You write very clear in a previous post (with my total agreement):
> 
> Gary: [Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.
> The 1905 text REFUTES the GT. ]
> 
> You also write very clear in a posterior post (with my alert about
> the use of the "inertial frame" concept in 1905 when it does not
> exist yet):
> 
> Gary: [ But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial
> frame meets the criteria. ]
> 
> And now are you the one saying that GT defines inertial frames?

You misunderstand.  The GT is an EARLY attempt at defining an inertial
frame.  Since the GT is refuted, it does not describe the relationship
BETWEEN inertial frames, but it certainly knows what an inertial frame
is.

> can you use a REFUTED GT to define an "inertial frame", a concept
> that you seem identifying with the 1905 Einstein "stationary system"?
>  
> > The GT is a subset of generalized inertial frames wherein space and time
> > are linear and homogeneous.  In general,
> > 
> > x' = G*(x + H*t)
> > t' = A*(t + B*x)
> > 
> > Applying Galilean relativity (i.e., x'/t' = -v when x/t = 0 and x'/t' = -v
> > when x/t = 0 and for all t), the general transform becomes
> > 
> > x' = G*(x - v*t)
> > t' = G*(t + B*x)
> > 
> > Assuming universal time results in the GT.  Assuming a speed limit instead
> > of universal time results in the LT.  These are purely kinematic transforms
> > and do not rely on Newton's law of motion.  Dynamics is a different story
> > which E addressed later in his paper.
> >
> All the theory expressed in your last equations was developed AFTER
> the radical changes introduced by 1907 Minkowski, particularly the
> space-time concept,

There is no space-time concept in my derivation.  You are hallucinating
if you see that and then confusing yourself because you accept the LT
but disavow space-time.  How can you accept the LT and complain about

x' = G*(x + H*t)
t' = A*(t + B*x)

> not representing then the original 1905 Einstein theory that I usually
> denote as 1905R, to distinguish it from the different Special Relativity
> (SR) of our days.

You are quibbling over words.

> In 1905R, 1686NM continue holding good, including the gravitational
> equations,

Right there is where you go disastrously wrong.  Newtonian gravity
CANNOT be correct because of the speed-of-light limit.

Thus the remainder of your argument is fatally refuted.

Gary

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

#361463

El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 22:56:30 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:24:14 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> > El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 11:52:42 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > >
> > > Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
> > > first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
> > > nonsense like "center of mass."
> > >
> > I say nothing about an "inertial frame", but about a 1905 Einstein
> > "stationary system".
> 
> Same thing.  You are trying to pettifog the issue.
>
YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
"time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
frame" concept does not exist yet.
 
> > E's first postulate as it appears in the Introduction:
> > 
> > [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
> > 
> > What you denote as "extraneous nonsense" appears since Corollary IV
> > of 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM), derived from his three Axioms
> > or Laws of Motion, denoted then "center of gravity".  Remember that
> > 1905 Einstein defines "stationary system" as a system of coordinates
> > in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 
> 
> He didn't mean it to refer to Newton's law of gravity.  He already knew
> that gravity could not be fit into SR.  Newtonian gravity must travel
> with infinite speed, and E knew full well that that was not possible.
> And you are pettifogging again by calling it "center of gravity."  The
> prober term is "center of mass."
>
You seem having lost the historical time order. To pretend that
gravity is not part of Newtonian mechanics is a total absurdity.
Even in 1911 Einstein is still trying to address gravity with SR.

Besides, in all Newtonian mechanics does not appear any reference
to an infinite speed of gravity (yes, contrary to the common way of
thinking, Newton was always an enemy of any action-at-a-distance).

By the way, 1686 Newton is the one (not me)denoting "center of
gravity" what today is known as "center of mass".

Just a curiosity: the properties of the center (very important ones)
are totally independent on the type of forces among the interacting
bodies determining it. 
 
> > > The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since Newton's
> > > laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
> > > frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....
> > >
> > You write very clear in a previous post (with my total agreement):
> > 
> > Gary: [Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.
> > The 1905 text REFUTES the GT. ]
> > 
> > You also write very clear in a posterior post (with my alert about
> > the use of the "inertial frame" concept in 1905 when it does not
> > exist yet):
> > 
> > Gary: [ But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial
> > frame meets the criteria. ]
> > 
> > And now are you the one saying that GT defines inertial frames?
> 
> You misunderstand.  The GT is an EARLY attempt at defining an inertial
> frame.  Since the GT is refuted, it does not describe the relationship
> BETWEEN inertial frames, but it certainly knows what an inertial frame
> is.
>
I do not understand how a REFUTED GT can continue defining inertial
frames.  Can you explain in more detail how a REFUTED GT knows what
an inertial frame is? With all my respect, what you say seems to me
a complete absurdity.
 
> > can you use a REFUTED GT to define an "inertial frame", a concept
> > that you seem identifying with the 1905 Einstein "stationary system"?
> >  
> > > The GT is a subset of generalized inertial frames wherein space and time
> > > are linear and homogeneous.  In general,
> > > 
> > > x' = G*(x + H*t)
> > > t' = A*(t + B*x)
> > > 
> > > Applying Galilean relativity (i.e., x'/t' = -v when x/t = 0 and x'/t' = -v
> > > when x/t = 0 and for all t), the general transform becomes
> > > 
> > > x' = G*(x - v*t)
> > > t' = G*(t + B*x)
> > > 
> > > Assuming universal time results in the GT.  Assuming a speed limit instead
> > > of universal time results in the LT.  These are purely kinematic transforms
> > > and do not rely on Newton's law of motion.  Dynamics is a different story
> > > which E addressed later in his paper.
> > >
> > All the theory expressed in your last equations was developed AFTER
> > the radical changes introduced by 1907 Minkowski, particularly the
> > space-time concept,
> 
> There is no space-time concept in my derivation.  You are hallucinating
> if you see that and then confusing yourself because you accept the LT
> but disavow space-time.  How can you accept the LT and complain about
> 
> x' = G*(x + H*t)
> t' = A*(t + B*x)
>
I only say that the theory you are describing was developed AFTER
1907 Minkowsk's changes, mentioning particularly the space-time
concept among those changes, not implying that you are using it.
For me is very important to follow the right historical order.

By the way, I am disavowing nothing, but being very careful about
what it is in 1905R and what it is not. For instance, I never denote
the unidirectional transform (FROM a stationary system TO a moving
one in it) that is in 1905R as LT, because this is the usual
denotation for the bidirectional transform considered in today SR
where the essential difference between a stationary system and a
moving one in it is totally deleted.
 
> > not representing then the original 1905 Einstein theory that I usually
> > denote as 1905R, to distinguish it from the different Special Relativity
> > (SR) of our days.
> 
> You are quibbling over words.
>
Only words? There exists an essential difference between the today
SR declared unable to address gravity and the 1905R totally able to
do it.
 
> > In 1905R, 1686NM continue holding good, including the gravitational
> > equations,
> 
> Right there is where you go disastrously wrong.  Newtonian gravity
> CANNOT be correct because of the speed-of-light limit.
>
Perhaps the today Newtonian gravity, but NOT the 1686NM one totally
compatible with 1905R, enriched with the universal mass-energy
relationship discovered by 1905 Einstein and the also universal
ratio (valid for all bodies in any place)
gravitational mass/inertial mass=gamma, where the speed-of-light
limit is managed without any problem at all.

The two results are derived from the same formula that appears in
the 1905 Einstein Sep 27 paper with title:

Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?

Yes, the inertial mass (or inert mass, or rest mass) measures the
potential energy, and the gravitational mass the conserved total
energy (the adding of kinetic energy and potential one).
 
> Thus the remainder of your argument is fatally refuted.
>
A vey huge quantity of experimental evidence supporting the 1905R
gravity applications is waiting for you (or any other interested
person).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Gary

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

#361465

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>
> El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 22:56:30 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:24:14 PM UTC-6, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > >
> > > El jueves, 20 de agosto de 2015, 11:52:42 (UTC-4), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Your provisos are not necessary conditions for an inertial frame.  E's
> > > > first postulate defines such a frame without introducing extraneous
> > > > nonsense like "center of mass."
> > > >
> > > I say nothing about an "inertial frame", but about a 1905 Einstein
> > > "stationary system".
> > 
> > Same thing.  You are trying to pettifog the issue.
> >
> YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
> is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
> "time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
> frame" concept does not exist yet.

You are deluding yourself.  Einstein knew EXACTLY what a "stationary system"
meant, and it is EXACTLY what we mean today by "inertial frame."

> > > E's first postulate as it appears in the Introduction:
> > > 
> > > [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
> > > 
> > > What you denote as "extraneous nonsense" appears since Corollary IV
> > > of 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM), derived from his three Axioms
> > > or Laws of Motion, denoted then "center of gravity".  Remember that
> > > 1905 Einstein defines "stationary system" as a system of coordinates
> > > in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. 
> > 
> > He didn't mean it to refer to Newton's law of gravity.  He already knew
> > that gravity could not be fit into SR.  Newtonian gravity must travel
> > with infinite speed, and E knew full well that that was not possible.
> > And you are pettifogging again by calling it "center of gravity."  The
> > prober term is "center of mass."
> >
> You seem having lost the historical time order. To pretend that
> gravity is not part of Newtonian mechanics is a total absurdity.
> Even in 1911 Einstein is still trying to address gravity with SR.

And failing miserably.

> Besides, in all Newtonian mechanics does not appear any reference
> to an infinite speed of gravity (yes, contrary to the common way of
> thinking, Newton was always an enemy of any action-at-a-distance).

You are deluding yourself again.  Newtonian gravity MUST travel many
times faster than light or the solar system could not maintain any
semblance of stability:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

> By the way, 1686 Newton is the one (not me)denoting "center of
> gravity" what today is known as "center of mass".

So what?  Everyone (except you) understands that they refer to the same
thing.

> Just a curiosity: the properties of the center (very important ones)
> are totally independent on the type of forces among the interacting
> bodies determining it. 

I have no idea what you're mumbling about now.

> > > > The Galilean transform equations define inertial frames since Newton's
> > > > laws apply in each of them.  Whether or not you call them inertial
> > > > frames is immaterial.  A rose by any other name ....
> > > >
> > > You write very clear in a previous post (with my total agreement):
> > > 
> > > Gary: [Nope.  The Galilean transform is Newtonian and the LT is not.
> > > The 1905 text REFUTES the GT. ]
> > > 
> > > You also write very clear in a posterior post (with my alert about
> > > the use of the "inertial frame" concept in 1905 when it does not
> > > exist yet):
> > > 
> > > Gary: [ But his "stationary system" is NOT unique as ANY inertial
> > > frame meets the criteria. ]
> > > 
> > > And now are you the one saying that GT defines inertial frames?
> > 
> > You misunderstand.  The GT is an EARLY attempt at defining an inertial
> > frame.  Since the GT is refuted, it does not describe the relationship
> > BETWEEN inertial frames, but it certainly knows what an inertial frame
> > is.
> >
> I do not understand how a REFUTED GT can continue defining inertial
> frames.  Can you explain in more detail how a REFUTED GT knows what
> an inertial frame is? With all my respect, what you say seems to me
> a complete absurdity.

A "frame" does not require any transform.  Rather, it is a definition
used to derive a transform.  DUH!

> > > All the theory expressed in your last equations was developed AFTER
> > > the radical changes introduced by 1907 Minkowski, particularly the
> > > space-time concept,
> > 
> > There is no space-time concept in my derivation.  You are hallucinating
> > if you see that and then confusing yourself because you accept the LT
> > but disavow space-time.  How can you accept the LT and complain about
> > 
> > x' = G*(x + H*t)
> > t' = A*(t + B*x)
> >
> I only say that the theory you are describing was developed AFTER
> 1907 Minkowsk's changes, mentioning particularly the space-time
> concept among those changes, not implying that you are using it.
> For me is very important to follow the right historical order.

Then you are a "historian":

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous

> By the way, I am disavowing nothing, but being very careful about
> what it is in 1905R and what it is not. For instance, I never denote
> the unidirectional transform (FROM a stationary system TO a moving
> one in it) that is in 1905R as LT, because this is the usual
> denotation for the bidirectional transform considered in today SR
> where the essential difference between a stationary system and a
> moving one in it is totally deleted.

You will please note that Einstein put "stationary system" in quotation
marks, indicating that Newtonian mechanics held good in it.  But Newtonian
mechanics hold good in ANY system moving with uniform velocity wrt to it.
So there is no such thing as a "unidirectional transform" in either the
GT or the LT.
 
> > > not representing then the original 1905 Einstein theory that I usually
> > > denote as 1905R, to distinguish it from the different Special Relativity
> > > (SR) of our days.
> > 
> > You are quibbling over words.
> >
> Only words? There exists an essential difference between the today
> SR declared unable to address gravity and the 1905R totally able to
> do it.

No, there isn't.  It is only in your false opinion, and you are bothering
people with it.

"People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha

> > > In 1905R, 1686NM continue holding good, including the gravitational
> > > equations,
> > 
> > Right there is where you go disastrously wrong.  Newtonian gravity
> > CANNOT be correct because of the speed-of-light limit.
>
> [Regurgitated nonsense deleted]
>
> A vey huge quantity of experimental evidence supporting the 1905R
> gravity applications is waiting for you (or any other interested
> person).
> 
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

I've seen it.  Newtonian gravity works just fine for imprecise measurements
and small gravitational effects, but they fail miserably when more precise
experiments are performed, such as GPS, Gravity Probe B and Shapiro delay.
And it even fails the smell test for the Pound-Rebka experiment since NG
must assume the light travels faster than c in order to get agreement.

Gary

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

#361478

On 8/21/15 8/21/15 - 12:35 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
> is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
> "time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
> frame" concept does not exist yet.

Sure, but that's just WORDS.

Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all possible 
stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.


Tom Roberts

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

#361479

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:xeudnUAxr8JvF0rInZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com...

|Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all 
possible
|stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.

And empty, too. Consider the set of all possible prime numbers
divided by 5. It is IDENTICAL to both, poor idiot.

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

#361481

Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:mr825e$rha$1@node2.news.atman.pl...



Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:xeudnUAxr8JvF0rInZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com...

|Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all
possible
|stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.

|And empty, too. Consider the set of all possible prime numbers
|divided by 5. It is IDENTICAL to both, poor idiot.

OOps, a mistake. this one has 1 elemetnt.  But, sill, there is a lot
of other examples. 

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

#361753

El viernes, 21 de agosto de 2015, 16:32:53 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 8/21/15 8/21/15 - 12:35 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
> > is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
> > "time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
> > frame" concept does not exist yet.
> 
> Sure, but that's just WORDS.
> 
> Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all possible 
> stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.
>
Let us go directly to the original text to know what 1905 Einstein
means by "stationary system", that following you is IDENTICAL to what
we mean today by "inertial frame"; at the end of the Introduction and
beginning of Section 1 in his June 30 paper (all the quoted
continuous text between [ ]):

[ 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.

The theory to be developed is based -like all electrodynamics- on the
kinematics of the rigid body,  since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies 	(systems of 
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.  Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the
difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present
encounters.

I. KINEMATICAL PART

Section 1. Definition of Simultaneity

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates
verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call
it the "stationary system". ]

Einstein starts taking out the Newtonian absolute space, including
any ether, declaring always at rest (not assigning to it
a velocity-vector) any point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.

Einstein identifies systems of co-ordinates with rigid bodies,
excluding since then completely any phantom (without body) system of
co-ordinates (as the Newton's absolute one, the unique true for him,
or the infinite relative and apparent ones moving with respect to
this absolute one at all possible uniform and absolute velocities).

Being 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM) an axiomatic theory, like
the Euclidean geometry also used in 1905 Relativity (1905R), the
holding good by definition of the equations of Newtonian mechanics
in any "stationary system" implies that the 1686 Newton's Axioms or
Laws of Motion are also valid in 1905R, jointly with six Corollaries
and many other Theorems derived from them (in the past, present or
future).

The Corollary IV introduces the concept of "center of gravity"
(today denoted "center of mass") for any body set of interacting
bodies, having that center very important properties, determining
the relative rest of the corresponding "stationary system". At the
end of Section 4 Einstein considers the "stationary system"
corresponding to the body set of all Earth's parts, with the center
of mass at the relative rest of the system, being part of the
Earth's rotating axis (including also the poles), a Cartesian one in
the corresponding "stationary space" of the same system denoted
today GPS ECI.

Corollary V is the Galilean Principle of Relativity, where the same
Nature Laws continue ruling the interactions of some body set
(LIMITED to the INTERIOR ones in the Galileo's ship), no matter what
uniform velocity the ship can has, including the rest. Corollary VI
is a generalization of Corollary V from acceleration zero (any
uniform velocity) to any variable acceleration.

If you compare now a 1905R "stationary systems" with today Special
Relativity (SR) "inertial frames", you can find a lot of differences.
The more important one is that "stationary systems" are body
dependent (limited to some body set), while SR "inertial frames" do
not. Very relevant is also the not assigment of a velocity-vector to
any "stationary system", while that distintion between a "stationary
system" and a moving in it system does not exist at all in SR
inertial frames.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#361858

El viernes, 21 de agosto de 2015, 16:32:53 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 8/21/15 8/21/15 - 12:35 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
> > is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
> > "time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
> > frame" concept does not exist yet.
> 
> Sure, but that's just WORDS.
> 
> Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all possible 
> stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.
>
Let us go directly to the original text to know what 1905 Einstein
means by "stationary system", that following you is IDENTICAL to
what we mean today by "inertial frame"; at the end of the
Introduction and beginning of Section 1 in his June 30 paper
(all the quoted continuous text between [ ]):

[ 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.
The theory to be developed is based -like all electrodynamics- on
the kinematics of the rigid body,  since the assertions of any
such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies
(systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes.
Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root
of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at
present encounters.

I. KINEMATICAL PART

Section 1. Definition of Simultaneity

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates
verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call
it the "stationary system". ]

As you can read, Einstein starts taking out the Newtonian absolute
space, including any possible ether, declaring always at rest (not
assigning to it a velocity-vector) any point of the empty space in
which electromagnetic processes take place.  Einstein identifies
systems of co-ordinates with rigid bodies, excluding since then
completely any "phantom" (without body) system of co-ordinates (as
the Newton's absolute one, the unique true for him, or the infinite
relative and apparent ones moving with respect to this absolute one
at all possible uniform and absolute velocities).

Being 1686 Newtonian mechanics (1686NM) an axiomatic theory, like
the Euclidean geometry also used in 1905 Relativity (1905R), the
holding good by definition of the equations of Newtonian mechanics
in any "stationary system" implies that the 1686 Newton's Axioms or
Laws of Motion are also valid in 1905R, jointly with six Corollaries
and many other Theorems derived from them , including the
gravitational ones.

The Corollary IV introduces the concept of "center of gravity" (today
denoted "center of mass" for any body set of interacting bodies,
having that center very important properties, determining the
relative rest of the corresponding "stationary system". At the end of
Section 4 Einstein considers the "stationary system" corresponding to
the body set of all Earth's parts, with the center of mass at the
relative rest of the system, being part of the Earth's rotating axis
(including also the poles), a Cartesian one in the corresponding
"stationary space" of the same system denoted today GPS ECI.

Corollary V is the Galilean Principle of Relativity, where the same
Nature Laws continue ruling the interactions of some body set
(LIMITED to the INTERIOR ones in the Galileo's ship), no matter what
uniform velocity the ship can has, including the rest. Corollary VI
is a generalization of Corollary V from acceleration zero (any
uniform velocity) to any variable acceleration.

If you compare now 1905R "stationary systems" with the today Special
Relativity (SR) "inertial frames", you can find a lot of differences.
The more important one is that "stationary systems" are body
dependent, each one LIMITED to some different body set; while the SR
"inertial frames" do not have that limitation, all being considered
equivalent, with the distinction between a stationary system and the
moving in it ones totally eliminated.

With all those differences, it is not strange at all that today SR
"inertial frames" are unable to address gravity; while the 1905R
"stationary systems" mantain that ability (including the today very
important GPS ECI), a fact that you insist not to take into account,
rejecting to know any thing about it (including already a very huge
experimental evidence).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#361996

On 8/25/15 8/25/15 - 6:58 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El viernes, 21 de agosto de 2015, 16:32:53 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
>> On 8/21/15 8/21/15 - 12:35 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>> YOU are the one saying that "inertial frame and "stationary system"
>>> is the same thing. The historical fact is that 1905 Einstein defines
>>> "time" and "stationary system" in 1905, when the today "inertial
>>> frame" concept does not exist yet.
>>
>> Sure, but that's just WORDS.
>>
>> Consider the set of all possible inertial frames, and the set of all possible
>> stationary systems (in the 1905 sense). These sets are IDENTICAL.
>>
> Let us go directly to the original text to know what 1905 Einstein
> means by "stationary system", [...]

Yes, let's do so. The lengthy quote and discussion you gave is COMPLETELY 
IRRELEVANT. His actual definition of "stationary system" is:

	Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of
	Newtonian mechanics hold good [2]. In order to render our
	presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of
	coordinates verbally from others which will be introduced
	hereafter, we call it the "stationary system".

	[2] I.e. to the first approximation. [TRANSLATOR'S footnote]

That's it. Clearly ANY such coordinates meet the definition, and all else is 
irrelevant. As I said, the set of all possible "stationary systems" is identical 
to the set of all possible inertial frames. Moreover, it is clear that 
"stationary system" is just a LABEL, without intrinsic meaning: it could be 
replaced by "bnltxfg" without changing the meaning or content of the paper.

Einstein's ACTUAL definition of "stationary system" clearly does NOT require any 
material object or body to be at rest in the coordinates. This makes your 
attempted revisionist interpretation of this paper both irrelevant and WRONG.


Tom Roberts

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

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

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

csiph-web