Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- From: bz <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:36:38 +0000 (UTC)
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1172593731.988212.175680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Feb 27, 8:10 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Besides, the point is that nist does NOT claim to have an absolute
handle on time, so your cite is interesting but not ex-cite-ing.
Physicists have a sufficient handle time it offer some plausible
explanition how your car know WHEN to stop pushing back
when you push it on level ground.
Hint: It does not involve the mass of nearby objects nor
birthday candles as counted by twins nor a Newtonian
ether.
the term 'inertial' is intended to always accompany 'FoR'.
That is an assumption of Newton's ether?
That applies to the article that I wrote, where I omitted inertial and miss
spelled it once and you put a 'd' on the end of 'an' etc., etc.
Is your crank site being hosted by Andorcles ?
Who's that? Perhaps someone in my kill file, slightly miss spelled?
Did you mean An-dork-lees?
What math might that be? Juan + Juan = too?
I mean the 1905 paper. Where are there 'errors'?
You are arguing things Einstein couldn't even
support by 1923.
Show me. Mis-takes in his 1905 paper
Most are discussed by Weinberg and Unnikrishnan
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
[nothing about cabbages, kings or absolute syncing of clocks]
"Although there is a critical mass density at which this repulsive force
just balances the attractive force of gravitation, the balance is unstable;
a slight expansion will increase the repulsive force and decrease the
attractive force so that the expansion accelerates. It is hard to see how
Einstein could have missed this elementary difficulty."
"Einstein was also at first confused by an idea he had taken from the
philosopher Ernst Mach: that the phenomenon of inertia is caused by distant
masses. To keep inertia finite, Einstein in 1917 supposed that the universe
must be finite, and so he assumed that its spatial geometry is that of a
three-dimensional spherical surface. It was therefore a surprise to him
that when test particles are introduced into the empty universe of de
Sitter's model, they exhibit all the usual properties of inertia. In
general relativity the masses of distant bodies are not the cause of
inertia, though they do affect the choice of inertial frames. But that
mistake was harmless. As Einstein pointed out in his 1917 paper, it was the
assumption that the universe is static, not that it is finite, that had
made a cosmological constant necessary."
"Einstein made what from the perspective of today's theoretical physics is
a deeper mistake in his dislike of the cosmological constant. In developing
general relativity, he had relied not only on a simple physical
principle?the principle of the equivalence of gravitation and inertia that
he had developed from 1907 to 1911?but also on a sort of Occam's razor,
that the equations of the theory should be not only consistent with this
principle but also as simple as possible."
"Since Einstein's time, we have learned to distrust this sort of aesthetic
criterion. Our experience in elementary-particle physics has taught us that
any term in the field equations of physics that is allowed by fundamental
principles is likely to be there in the equations. It is like the ant world
in T. H. White's The Once and Future King: Everything that is not forbidden
is compulsory. .... Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it should be applied
to principles, not equations."
In the references it say "Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking have
described an erroneous prediction of Einstein regarding the rates of clocks
on Earth's surface, and in his book Albert Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA (1981), p. 328, Arthur I. Miller
has discussed an error in Einstein's calculation of the electron's
transverse mass."
But you didn't refer me to those and the paper you did refer me to says
nothing about absolute syncronization or 'lack thereof' being a mistake of
SR.
Did I miss something?
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Are you forwarding your retainer to my agent for
a line by line critique of an obsolete 1905 paper ? ;-)
I will give you 0.90 out of each dollar I earn after you and I 'turn the
b....rds out'. ;->
Hint: Give up the H.G Wells fantasy for a rigourous
derivation of Maxwell's equations and an unambiguous
interpretation of SR:
Are you saying you don't know how to do it and that no one will ever be
able to do it?
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
Actually, the singular pot said that, I don't think slippery mercury (Hg)
said that at all.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
This fellow says:
"It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock, while being
affected by motion, does not change due to acceleration. In particular, the
rate of a clock in uniform circular motion is the same as the rate of a
clock that is in rectilinear motion at the same speed."
but
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/26/3/018
On the clock paradox in the case of circular motion of the moving clock
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extend
ed
The theory has little or nothing to do with the number of
birthday candles on a cake, It has eveything to do with
how long a period of time a wagon pushes back when you
push it.
in-ertial or out-ertial, your quibble is still no tribble. I do not c
it.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
July 11, 1923
in brief: 'In classical mechanics....time is absolute'
You are the one assuming an inertial ether, not Weinstein.
This would seem to be in accord with my understanding. Perhaps you will
point out where I misapprehend.
[quote]
In classical mechanics the inertial frame and time are best defined
together by a suitable formulation of the law of inertia: It is
possible to fix the time and assign a state of motion to the system of
coordinates (inertial frame) such that, with reference to the latter,
force-free material points undergo no acceleration; furthermore it is
assumed that this time can be measured without disagreement by
identical clocks (systems which run down periodically) in any arbitrary
state of motion. There are then an infinite number of inertial frames
which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other, and
hence there is also an infinite number of mutually equivalent,
physically preferred states of motion. Time is absolute,
i.e.independent of the choice of the particular inertial frameabsolute,
i.e.independent of the choice of the particular inertial frame; it is
defined by more characteristics than logically necessary, although - as
implied by mechanics - this should not lead to contradictions with
experience. Note in passing that the logical weakness of this
exposition from the point of view of the stipulation of meaning is the
lack of an experimental criterion for whether a material point is
forcefree or not; therefore the concept of the inertial frame remains
rather problematical. This deficiency leads to the general theory of
relativity. We shall not consider it for the moment. [unquote]
The 1920 paper doesn't refer to inertial frames in the SR section.
Inertial interaction is expressed as a pseudo-space in GR based on
mass/energy equivalence.
Wait. We were talking about the 1905 paper, then you brought up the 1923
talk. I showed that the 1923 talk seems in accord with what I said about
the 1905 paper. NOW, you throw in yet another paper, from 1920? HOLD on.
Why not work with 1905 and 1923 for a while?
So, in classical mechanics (NOT SR), time IS considered to be absolute.
That doesn't mean you can't synchronse clocks in a relativistic
system.
Of course not. You can certainly sycronize clocks in an Inertial FoR and
probably even in an accelerating FoR (people do it with clocks on earth).
That does NOT say that the clocks are 'absolutely syncronized' [that they
will appear to be syncronized from all FoRs.]
Be careful; when he says '...logical weakness....leads to GR', he is
NOT saying anything that implies SR has 'absolute time'. He is saying
that it is difficult to determine if a point is 'force free' and THAT
difficulty led to developement of GR.
What will cause a pushed car to push back for a shorter period of
time?
It gets tired of pushing back? Most of the time when I push a car, I give
up first!
That is the time GR is concerned with. Not imaginary clocks
that may have spatial components in them.
kk was claiming he could "absolutely" syncronize two clocks, no matter
where located.
I doubt that even superman could do that.
Later he says, in relation to SR "The time for each inertial frame is
measured by identical clocks that are stationary relative to the
frame....The special relativity theory resulted in appreciable
advances. It reconciled mechanics and electrodynamics. It reduced the
number of logically independent hypotheses regarding the latter. It
enforced the need for a clarification of the fundamental concepts in
epistemological terms. It united the momentum and energy principle, and
demonstrated the like nature of mass and energy. Yet it was not
entirely satisfactory - quite apart from the quantum problems, which
all theory so far has been incapable of really solving. In common with
classical mechanics the special relativity theory favours certain
states of motion - namely those of the inertial frames - to all other
states of motion."
Do you consider light a motion? If so what material object is moving?
What does that have to do with cabbages and kings? I quoted the above to
show that Einstein appears to have been of the opinion that there was a
problem setting clocks so that they were correct in all time zones.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le..
.
e.htmlhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point to a particular passage or
points in the cited documents that illustrates your point. The bulk of
those material seem to support my view of what AE says.
The 1920 paper doesn't attribute inertial motion to light.
I don't aether.
The term uniform motion is used.
How long do you want that board?
Oh, a long time, we're building a house.
You may have noticed that light doesn't orbit our sun as
the inertially moving planets do.
Really? Maybe some of it does, but we never see it because the orbit
doesn't intersect with the rods and cones in our eyes.
[quibble: not all 'orbits' are closed. EVERY photon reaching earth from the
stars followed 'an orbit' to reach our orbs.]
Methinks your arguments are non sequiturs. Inviting tangents.
I shall fall for one, however: Interstingly enough, if you use the mass of
a photon (relativistic mass, not rest mass) and the mass of the sun, you
can calculate the orbital distance for a photon traveling around the sun.
On the other hand, if you take the velocity of a photon and the mass of the
sun, you will calculate a different orbital diameter for the photon.
I might have missed the mighty mite that is knawing on you, aknawing, I<< Not sure what you mean by 'clickable' format. >>
know, but unless you point it out, I will never gnaw.
I'll take a look at it when it posts in 'clickable' format.
thisisnotwhitespacehttp://www.bartleby.com/
Can you click the above URL ? I can't.
I can. Methinks you browser-pmorphise.
<< There is no 'whitespace' in the url I gave. >>
Indeed... Please allow some on either end or
it isn't clickable on most browsers.
oic. What browser do you use? I use Xnews. It does NOT care about
'whitespace' on either side. I can click just fine on that link.
Even in the cases where someone has split a link across several lines, it
is a simple matter to highligh, copy, go to web browser, paste, go back to
newsreader, get next section of link, repeat as needed.
but in deferance to your newsreader, here is
clickable link << http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf >>
Was it good for you?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- From: Sue...
- Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- Prev by Date: Re: Lights approaching velocity.
- Next by Date: Final goodbye
- Previous by thread: Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- Next by thread: Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
