Re: About frames moving at constant velocity with respect to inertial ones

On 15 ago, 11:47, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote innews:1187192583.352001.140120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On 15 ago, 09:06, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 10 ago, 09:25, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I will repeat. For 1905 Einstein, an inertial system is one where
Newtonian mechanical laws hold good (you accepted that without any
problem). But Newtonian's laws are NOT Lorentz invariant.
That doesn't matter. In frame A, Newton's laws hold good WITHIN
FRAME A. Frame B moves relative to A with a uniform speed of 0.9c --
Newton's laws hold good in frame B WITHIN FRAME B. That's all he
said or used.

Your answer really surprise me. You seems accepting that Newtonian's
laws are NOT Lorentz invariant.

Hmmm. There is a reason why we use "inertial frames" today, and not
frames "in which Newton's laws hold good" -- we have LEARNED something
since 1905. <shrug>

Total agreement. But what is the relation with the topic?

The relation with the topic is that by the 1905 paper, mass is excluded and
so is gravity, so play by your own rules, or let others use what has been
learned since then.

Mass excluded from 1905 Relativity? Are you just making a joke? 1905
Einstein identify system of coordinates with rigid bodies, absolute
space and time are consider non-existing, the ether considered
"superfluous" (only bodies present), equation of Newtonian mechanics
holding good (you conceive them without mass?), surely you are
confusing Special Relativity with 1905 Relativity. Einstein own word
between { }. {The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
changes...}(Principle of 1905 Relativity). Do you see here any gravity
(or any other Nature force) exclusion? {The mass of a body is a
measure of its energy-content}(principal conclusion of the 1905 Sep 27
paper). Do you need more?
Please, make explicit references to the 1905 Relativity papers to
support your claim.
You can NOT have any mass in a homogeneous vacuum and that is what Einstein
stipulated at the beginning of his 1905 paper. You have been ignoring those
restrictions because they are not convenient for YOUR theories.

Einstein refers there to vacuum light speed. Perhaps you make then the
deduction that we have only vacuum in 1905 Relativity? Newton's first
law state uniform linear motion for a body without forces acting on
it. From that you deduce that forces are not present in 1905
Relativity (and then no more Newton's laws)? The restriction you
suppose about 1905 Relativity referring only to the vacuum without
mass is a completely ridiculous one. I recommend you to read by
yourself the 1905 Relativity papers and form your own criteria. You
can obtain them at http://www.fourmilab.ch
At least read the following, that it is only 3 short pages. You can
obtain it directly at

Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
--
bz

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

bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The princile of the relativity.
    ... .THE METAMORPHOSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY. ... All the laws of the mechanics are ... The only issue is the definition of an inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... >> plus terms of order v^4, where M is the mass of the body before radiation. ... >relatively stationary frame. ... of Einstein's Principle of Relativity. ... relativity if you didn't know the principle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... >> plus terms of order v^4, where M is the mass of the body before radiation. ... >relatively stationary frame. ... of Einstein's Principle of Relativity. ... relativity if you didn't know the principle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
    ... the Big Bang model of the universe (implying that the laws of the ... universe favour one particular inertial frame, ... laws of physics. ... experimentally decided against Einstein's relativity based ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A question about scientific truth
    ... Those "laws" are only workable if the things talked about are unambiguously ... defined members of classical sets. ... This is disambiguated by specifying the mass to be between ... how fast it it going (even taking relativity of motion into ...
    (sci.physics)