ABOUT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
- From: Stamenin <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:42:38 -0800 (PST)
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY AND ITS UNREASONABLE
MODIFICATIONS
By comparing the definitions of the principle of the relativity given
by Galilei and Einstein, is impossible to not get the conclusion that
the principle of the relativity has suffered real metamorphoses. Here
are these definitions:
1) The galilei’s definition: All laws of the mechanics are identical
in all coordinate systems that are staying or are moving in a straight
line and with constant speed.
According to first law of the mechanics, Newton has given the
definition of the absolute system of coordinates as being a system
that stays in cosmos and the relative systems as being systems that
are moving relative to the absolute system with constant speed and in
a straight line.
2) Einstein’s definition of the principle of the relativity in the
restricted sense given in page 15 of his book “Relativity”:
If relative to K, K’ is a uniformly moving coordinate system devoid
of rotation then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K’
according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. The
systems K’ and K are considered as being Galileian systems of
coordinates.
The definition of the Galileian system of coordinates is given in
page 12 of his book:
“A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that
the law of inertia holds relative to it, is called a “Galilaian system
of coordinates” The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be
regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of coordinates”.
3) Einstein’s second definition is given in page 63 of his book:
“All bodies of reference K, K’ etc. are equivalent for the
description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of
nature), whatever may be their state of motion”.
4) Einstein third definition is given in page 97 of the same book:
All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the
formulation of the general laws of the nature.
OBSERVATIONS:
1a) In Galilei’s definition of the principle of the relativity is not
defined properly the state of rest and the state of uniform motion in
a straight line and with constant speed.
These states are a consequence of the first law of the mechanics
where in its definition aren’t defined properly the same because isn’t
shown how we can determine the absolute system of coordinates.
My conclusion is, that these coordinate systems are impossible to be
determined, but the material bodies do their motion just relative to
such imaginary system of coordinates.
2a) In point two in Einstein definition of the principle of the
relativity the coordinate systems K and K’ the same, are impossible to
be determined. He uses the name Galileian systems of coordinates, but
their definition is a nonsense definition.
We want to know how we can determine a Galilaian system in a concrete
way because we can’t determine such a system with the expression: “if
the law of inertia holds to it’.
Evidently the situation with the determination of the Galileian
system of coordinates is exactly the same with that of the Newton’s
absolute and relative coordinate systems.
Out of that Einstein introduces in his definition the term “natural
phenomena” without any explanation. This addition is in contradiction
with his definition of the Galileian system of coordinates where he
uses the first law of the mechanics as a base and the state of motion
of the material bodies. Because the light doesn’t contain mass the
first law of the mechanics can’t be considered as being valid for the
description of the motion of the light.
3a) In point three Einstein introduces the term: “all bodies of
reference K, K’ etc. are equivalent for the description of natural
phenomena, (general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of
motion”.
a) The term, “all bodies of reference K, K’ are equivalent” is in
contradiction with Galilei’s definition of the principle of the
relativity. There is said that only the laws of the mechanics are
equivalent and only for the coordinate systems that are in motion in a
straight line and with constant speed. I’d like to ask, why Einstein
didn’t say openly that the Galilei definition of the principle of the
relativity is errant?
b) About the term, general laws of the nature, he hasn’t mention
any other law out of the so-called law of c=300,000 km/s relative to
the coordinate system from which we observe it. Which are all these
laws of nature? Are, for example the Darwin laws or not general laws
of the nature and is valid his principle of the relativity and for
these laws? Aren’t all these thinks ridiculous? Nobody can know all
laws of the nature. If he likes to use this term he has to enumerate
out which are all these laws.
c) About the term, “whatever may be their motion”, I can say that
all laws of the nature do not have obligatory a motion. And the
accelerated motion between the two coordinate systems K and K’, is in
contradiction with the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the
relativity and in fact with the reality in nature.
4a) In the third definition of the principle of the relativity
Einstein uses the term, Gaussian coordinate system and the term,
general laws of the nature.
So we can see that with this are finished the metamorphoses of the
principle of relativity. In this definition disappeared the terms:
laws of the mechanics and the motion of the coordinate systems K, and
K’ in a right line and with constant speed. How a big job done and how
big nonsense differences! The Galilei’s definition and this final
Einstein definition have nothing common. How is this possible and to
not say that Einstein negates the Galilei principle of relativity?
About the coordinate systems I can say that none of them exists in
the nature. All they are invented by men and have a value if they are
attached to a material body whose state of motion is known. Einstein’s
final definition makes no use of this condition.
In a large portion of the cosmos where do not exist gravitation,
there do not exist and material bodies to use them in this sense.
Because of that, we haven’t any possibility to determine a coordinate
system by attaching it to such a body. This is the cause that
determined me to conclude that such a coordinate system is impossible
to be determined, being it Galileian or absolute system. But for
Einstein this is not too difficult, he places his Galileiean system of
coordinates everywhere he likes without problems. Naming this system,
Galilean coordinate system he shows a big hypocrisy. By one side he
negates the Galilei’s principle of the relativity and on the other
side he honors him.
By everything that is said until now and with other occasions, I
can conclude that the principle of the relativity is not a law of the
nature, but is a comparative rule for asking the truth. When we know
what mathematical form have the laws of the mechanics in one
coordinate system K than we can find the truth that, they have the
same form in coordinate system K’ and inverse. And the use of the
Galilei principle of relativity is possible only if we know that at
least one of the coordinate systems is an inertial system and if they
are in a relative motion with constant speed and in straight
direction. So in my case, considering the principle of relativity as
being a rule is nothing changed from the Galilei’s definition of the
principle of the relativity but only is given a new far larger
significance in science.
Stamenin
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Test SPF3
- Next by Date: Re: I'll bet the First Three People to Repply to this are Geesey, van de Mortality and Diaper.
- Previous by thread: Principles of Relativity Illuminated
- Next by thread: Re: New Year 2009 Exercice for relativists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
