Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:28:45 -0700
On Oct 26, 12:26 am, Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bz wrote:[...]
Yes, no one has been able to dispute this, although as you say, the
ABSOLUTE set of reference frames could be relative to the medium of
space, or the combined mass of the universe, or to some extent both, we
really don't know the answer at this time.
No one is able to test for angular velocity in the absence of other
masses.
Actually, I think that Mach's point was that centrifugal force MIGHT not
exist in the absence of other objects; as long as it is changes in an
object's velocity relative to SPACE that requires a force, rather than
relative to the combined mass of the universe, we would indeed be able
to measure angular velocity by measuring the centrifugal/centripetal force.
This was Einstein's interpretion even tho it was not well expressed
in the psuedo-space of GR which had to produce most of the
characteristics of Newton's pseudo-space. (a local ether that
can give and take inertial energy)
<< Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Sue...
Phil
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Alen
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Sue...
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Phil
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Sue...
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Phil
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: RP
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Phil
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: bz
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Phil
- The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Prev by Date: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Next by Date: Re: laboratory watch shows same time for both twins
- Previous by thread: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Next by thread: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|