Re: inertial frames of reference

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: inertial frames of reference
Date	2016-01-23 12:11 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<n80fo6$1tm3$13@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <n7qpte$ho4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <70edde1c-425a-4192-96e9-795f4481f02d@googlegroups.com> <n7qslt$q4c$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4d84b95f-4d82-4044-8d6c-df367801cdd6@googlegroups.com> <5b7b0578-51f4-4dc5-babb-ab121fbac75a@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/22/2016 9:20 PM, kquirici@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:48:58 AM UTC-5, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:15:52 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2016 8:57 AM, kquirici@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> I like that thought experiment. I think of the ball pulling on the string but (usually)
>>>> not the equal and opposite force of the string pulling on the ball. And the notion of
>>>> the missing balancing force that the more general notion of equilibrium leads to. Cool.
>>>
>>> One more comment here because I spotted a mistake that I once made while
>>> learning this subject too -- I guess it's a common mistake.
>>>
>>> It's tempting to say that equilibrium means that the string pulls on the
>>> ball with a force equal to how much the ball is pulling on the string.
>>> But no, that's not what equilibrium means. Equilibrium means that all
>>> the forces on a SINGLE object cancel out. So choose the ball OR the
>>> string, but stick with that one. Now, if you choose the ball, then look
>>> at all the forces acting ON THE BALL and ask if they cancel out. Since
>>> only the string is acting on the ball, there can be no way all the
>>> forces acting on the ball cancel out.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> Good ooint. I think I was sort of making that mistake too. One of the virtues of
> fuzzy and insufficiently worked-out thinking is that one at times only sort of makes mistakes.
>
> So what about this question/suggestion from the first post:
>
> there are no inertial frames of reference because the universe is filled with gravitational
> fields and hence all objects are accelerating (however slightly).
>
> ?
>

Be careful. Remember what I told you the definition of an inertial frame 
is. I didn't say anything about it being gravity free. What DID I say?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 11:31 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:32 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 14:14 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 05:10 +0000
      Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:58 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:01 +0000
          Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:10 -0600
  Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:25 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 19:47 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:37 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:28 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 06:57 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:15 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 07:48 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 19:20 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 14:43 +1100
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:11 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 13:15 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-24 04:48 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:57 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 05:32 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:56 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:13 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:58 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:09 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:29 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:25 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:48 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 14:57 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:03 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 18:32 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:50 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:20 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:34 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:41 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:25 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:54 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:32 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:15 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:18 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 12:52 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:51 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:09 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:23 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:26 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:10 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:01 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:14 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:02 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:30 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 15:06 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:15 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:00 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 04:47 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:54 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 06:44 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:53 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:07 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:24 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:32 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:50 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:50 -0500
                Re: Ben Jacoby hates the truth because it convicts him. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:01 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:27 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 09:33 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:11 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:08 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:39 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:56 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 18:57 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:43 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:13 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 14:47 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:10 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 01:13 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:26 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:05 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:31 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:37 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:58 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:05 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:14 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:58 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:39 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:43 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:01 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:12 -0500
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 08:59 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 09:03 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:40 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-30 11:36 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:44 -0600
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 05:19 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:10 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 10:06 -0800
  Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:23 -0800
    Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-31 08:53 -0800
      Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 11:54 -0800
        Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:04 -0600
          Re: inertial frames of reference xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-31 15:01 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:07 -0600
      Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:54 -0600
        Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 15:04 -0800
          Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:37 -0800
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:18 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:26 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:52 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:34 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 10:40 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 12:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 16:38 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 07:19 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:53 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:55 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 16:27 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 01:39 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 05:49 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:49 -0800
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:20 -0600
                Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:43 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:20 -0800
              Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:55 -0600
            Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:43 -0600
    Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:51 -0600

csiph-web