Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1120489780.990083.63750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>> [quote]
>> the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
>> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
>> [unquote]
>> He does not say what those laws are. He just says that they will hold
>> for all frames of reference for which the equations of machanics hold.
>>
>> He follows this closely with his second postulate.
>> [quote]
>> that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
>> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>> [unquote]
>>
>
> Coulomb force and gravity is what usually is exempted
> from "crutched up" interpretations of AE's PoR.

In AE's 1905 paper on special relativity, he deals with uniform motion, so
those exclusions makes sense as they involve acceleration.

> Isn't that convenient? Long range forces that can
> never be localized can't screw up what really
> should be called a "Theory of Invariance".
>
> But Oops. Exempting the Coulomb force and
> gravity assumes things don't radiate.

NO. It just says that 'today we will not deal with gravity or how light is
created'.

> Which is quite consistant with Maxwell's equations
> when Ampere's law is used, (vs Biot-Savart)
> and quite consistant with a gravity theory
> that requires rocket motors under your chair.

But quite outside the scope of Special Relativity.

Science often involves restricting the scope of ones investigation.


[No need to quote the entire article just to post such a comment.]



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages