Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never want you to know.

Sue... wrote:
I have seen about five ways to test if a path
is inertial. Which you choose is somewhat dependent
on the theory or set of laws refered to.

<< The same kind of circular reasoning arises
whenever we critically examine the concept of
inertia. For example, when trying to decide
if our region of spacetime is really flat,
so that "straight lines" exist, we face the
same difficulty. As Einstein said:

The weakness of the principle of inertia lies
in this, that it involves an argument in a
circle: a mass moves without acceleration
if it is sufficiently far from other bodies;
we know that it is sufficiently far from other
bodies only by the fact that it moves without
acceleration.

So,
He proposed that an object moves without acceleration.
(and ignored what constant speeds of what a true inertial only
force would produce?)
He could not use a constant speed like would really happen
if such object was truly far enough away from G-forces?
And he just said that is the problem?
That is pretty funny.
He completely just dropped "true inertia" without any
phsyical reason to do such.
:)


We could equally well substitute [has the greatest
lapse of proper time] for [is sufficiently far
from other bodies]. In either case the point is
the same: special relativity postulates the existence
of inertial frames and assigns to them a preferred
role, but it gives no a priori way of establishing
the correct mapping between this concept and anything
in reality. This is what Einstein was referring
to when he said "In classical mechanics, and no
less in the special theory of relativity, there
is an inherent epistemological defect...". >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Aha!
There is his step into the "multiple standards of time" joke
and then of course, he needed to find his multiple standard
of distance and of course.. the math finally worked.
All because he refused to find the "physical" cause
of the change in the "true" inertial path.
LOL

I found five. Other than a straight line,
which we agree, nature can't even know about,
what are the tests we can use to know if
an object is on an inertial trajectory?

Nature does not "know" anything.
Nature just happens when forces occur.
Nature does not control the forces, the forces
control nature.
Nature does not even have a clue a planet is there,
until forces show up from the planet being there.
Why do you give Nature a knowledge factor at all?
Again, that is like saying light "knows" how to take
the curve it needs.


Actually, yes, if you took the time to find true inertial paths
and then took the time to find the reasoning for the "change"
in inertial paths..

I took the time. I looked. They are not straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

You looked in a world of multiple standards.
(In short. a world of "non science" and only theory
still.)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast