Re: Einstein's Mistakes

On Tue, RP <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Sun, RP <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>shuba wrote:
>>>>A recent (November) article by Steven Weinberg:
>>>>http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
>>>
>>RP wrote:
>>>There is a huge fumble within this article.
>>
>> I don't think so, in my opinion he is one of the
>> better relativists, many other very talented people
>> have wrong opinions about space and inertia,
>> similar to yours.
>
>What about that pail of spinning water?

That is Mach's line.

> Set a disk rotating in an otherwise empty universe.
>What would it be rotating wrt to?

Itself. Rotation is an acceleration, and the
acceleration of atoms changes the orbit of electrons,
resulting in a change in energy.


> Unless its particles extend fields individually,
>that don't rotate wrt each other,

"Fields" are not needed, Mach was wrong.

>then other particles would have nothing to reference
>their own motions to within the disk,

Except the other particles, and themselves
being accelerated.

>and even with these in place the disk could not spin until
>some of its particles escaped to form an external reference frame.

A reference frame is not needed, just the change
in the "shape" of the electron orbitals being constantly
accelerated provides the index of rotation.

>The extension of all of the particles is the medium in which
>motion takes place, and to which all motion is referenced.

Since electrons have mass, that means they have
inertia, a well defined quantity, and a given acceleration
results in a specific amount of energy for interactions.

>External objects aren't required for the disk to exist,
>but to say that they aren't involved in a real
>situation is ridiculous.

To think they can be involved is what is
rediculous, there is no mechanism for them to
be involved.
If you mean that the presence of matter
alters the spacetime geometry, that doesn't matter,
an object can alter geometry without a field or
particle interaction.

>In his hypothetical case of a handful of particles,
>the other particles are the universe.

Physics is far too complicated if forces from
afar are needed, for gravity, or for inertia.

>Why would they not behave the same as in
>the real universe.

They would, but not because of an interaction,
unless it is a contact interaction.
I can argue this because I use a model that
does not use long range forces for gravity, or inertia.

>They would in fact form a real universe.
>Yet each and every one of those other particles is
>interacting with any one of the others, and thus determining the
>space-time metric that guides their motions.

Nothing "governs" their motions, consider it
like governments, your concept is like a dictatorship
or socialism, mine is like freedom of the individual.
The quantum nature of matter determines how
it will react to accleration, and without contact interaction,
there is no acceleration.

>We are at this moment in motion wrt distant Galaxies,
>and in order to accomplish this motion it is prerequisite
>that those distant galaxies are extending fields through
>which we are moving, i.e. that we can move wrt.

Nonsense, there is nothing in physics that says
that except the inertia of Mach, which Einstein discarded
after considerable reflection.

>If not, then conservation laws would be out the window.

Not really, at least not rational laws, determined
by nature, not by words.

>There is an order, and local effects are inseparable
>in that context from distant events, taking into
>consideration Minkowski's time offsets.
>Richard Perry

All that is needed is for matter to be doing
something not recognized as yet, and that could
affect the local geometry without "fields".

I can't quote the exact words by Einstein,
but I think by 1930 at least, he had discarded Mach.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock, ... while being affected by motion, ... it is NOT the acceleration itself that causes the ... Seacrh for "inertia" and see for yourself: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
    ... >> state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial ... It is the density gradient of the photonic vortex ... surrounding material particles that bends light rays. ... the inertia of its spin, and inertia is the definitive physical ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
    ... >> state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial ... It is the density gradient of the photonic vortex ... surrounding material particles that bends light rays. ... the inertia of its spin, and inertia is the definitive physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Mistakes
    ... better relativists, many other very talented people have wrong opinions about space and inertia, similar to yours. ... Unless its particles extend fields individually, that don't rotate wrt each other, then other particles would have nothing to reference their own motions to within the disk, and even with these in place the disk could not spin until some of its particles escaped to form an external reference frame. ... The extension of all of the particles is the medium in which motion takes place, and to which all motion is referenced. ... In his hypothetical case of a handful of particles, the other particles are the universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Recantation on inettia
    ... > is_ the definition of inertia! ... > acceleration that it causes. ... > acceleration is a measure of the amount of mass - or quantity of ... Inertia is mass but only for the linear motion. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading