Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:26:34 +0100
"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13m0ohgmrir4sf7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1197475383_5752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13lvokngsrdaua7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1197465260_5724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest
Nice try. :-)
Pretty much perfect
Relative to what do you think that "inertial frames" are not rotating?
Every other inertial frame
I can give you a similar answer: they are not rotating relative to
Newtonian frames!
Rotation is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is measured
Acceleration is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is
measured
Velocity is not.
Only iFoR really count, because they are the FoR where the laws of physics
apply uniformly and consistently.
Consistency ain't the issue. Here's another consistent one: God exists
because it's written in the bible and the bible must be true because in it
God says that the bible is inspired by him. ;-)
iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect. The
question was about the physical cause that makes them look special or
"preferred".
The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation are
RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
Regards,
Harald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- References:
- Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: maxwell
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: harry
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: maxwell
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: harry
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: harry
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Jeckyl
- Physical interpretation in physics.
- Prev by Date: Re: GR1916, available online.
- Next by Date: Re: Wavelength & Frequency experiments for SR
- Previous by thread: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Next by thread: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|