Re: Physical interpretation in physics.

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1197537994_5796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.

If the 'laws' dont appl consistently, they aren't laws.

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. ;-)

Nonsense

iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.

What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with. There is
no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual object that
htey are associated with. They are a concept.

The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special or
"preferred".

There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
physical.

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.

Probably because they aren't.


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast