Re: If you ask the time to Nature, she just shrugs

On May 25, 10:34 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 25, 3:19 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 25, 10:09 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 2:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 9:14 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 12:37 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 6:47 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 11:10 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 6:00 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 10:36 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 25, 5:00 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Synchronization of clocks is a human task. There is
no known natural mechanism for clocks synchronization..

<<
    * invariance with respect to time translation
      gives the well-known law of conservation of
      energy >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

So you are claiming that a star should burn on
even when is out of fuel.

Where on Earth have you gathered from
I'm claiming a star should burn on even
when is out of fuel?

<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

     All inertial frames are totally equivalent
     for the performance of all physical experiments.>>

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Humans can use a gun and a ruler.

===============

Unfortunately, humans use guns more often
than rulers.

Off topic.

Thank you for retracting the claims of
your original post.

Sue...

Sue...

The claim stated as Einstein's relativity principle:

        "All inertial frames are totally equivalent
         for the performance of all physical experiments"

Is a logical fallacy.

Your warped notion of gravity and inertia
is what is illogical.

You still don't know how illogical my notion of inertia
can be. I'll give you an example.

Let M be the mass of a macroscopic body composed of N particles
of equal mass, m. So, M = N*m. Now, apply a force F on that body.
In order to see what inertia is, consider a string and put
each mass m in a node, arbitrarily spaced. Something will travel
along the string from one node to the next, carrying momentum until
the last node. Consider that carrier actually travels instantaneously
between two adjacent nodes, but the larger the mass of a node the
larger the time delay to jump the next one. That is inertia:
an arbitrary alignment of elementary masses along a string.

Your warped notion of gravity and inertia
is what is !!! illogical!!!

When did arbitrary become equal to
"aligned on a straight line" ?

That is 300 years old and didn't work for Newton.

Well, evidently you do not understand my illogical
notion of inertia :-)

Arbitrary is not synonym of "aligned on a straight line".
Firstly, a string is not necessarily a straight line.
Secondly, arbitrariness stands for the number of nodes
in the string. The mechanism of inertia I'm trying to
describe is that a carrier of momentum travels
sequentially from one elementary mass to the next, and
that total time for carrying momentum from the first
node to the last is a quantity that depends upon total
mass. Two equal forces, F, applied on two distinct masses
m1 and m2 at rest, along the same time interval t, produce
distinct final velocities, as

        v1 = (F/m1)*t
        v2 = (F/m2)*t

so, v1>v2 iff m2<m1, or v1<v2 iff m2>m1, because momenta
are the same p = v1*m1 = m2*v2.

That is not a theory of inertia.
That is the assumption of inertia.

Do you understand the difference in earning
money and spending money ?

No, I do not understand that difference, explain
it to me please. AFAIK, you can't earn money if
it is not spent by other, and you can't spend money
if it is not earned by other. What difference are
you talking about? The difference is always a choise
of the point of view. The real fact is the transfer
itself.

The the toy model I linked has to *assume* unlike
charges attract.

You are concocting something that has to *assume*
particles know something about a straight line.

Which is the safer assumption based on our
observations of nature?

Pretty pics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass


Sue...





Sue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame#No_preferred_frames

"mass there influences inertia here"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

If it is proved that an experiment in a frame is not
equivalent to the same experiment in another frame,
then either the former is not inertial, or the latter
or both. []

You forgot to include a rocket motor.

Hint: inertial frame are unphysical, because there is no
known place in the universe where gravity should vanish.

True.

Gravity pervades the whole universe, [...]

Compare experiments on co-moving ships

Fire one rocket for 5 seconds.

Compare experiment on relatively moving ship.
They should be the the same.

<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

     All inertial frames are totally equivalent
     for the performance of all physical experiments.>>


http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

This toy-model is a plausible mechanism where
the free_space dielectric is a component for
both electromagnetism and gravito-inertia.

The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107...

Now you have a toy. Stop harassing the adults
and go outside and play.  :-)

If you think I'm harassing you, then you are not so
adult. An adult would say, "Come here, sit down and
explain it better to me, your ideas look interesting"

:-)

Sue...



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT...Big Bang?
    ... that is the force of gravity. ... then he would have to tie his string one third of the ... Inertia at the ends prevents them from moving at the same time. ... Inertial mass is a measurement of mass, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: If you ask the time to Nature, she just shrugs
    ... In order to see what inertia is, consider a string and put ... each mass m in a node, ... arbitrariness stands for the number of nodes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If you ask the time to Nature, she just shrugs
    ... In order to see what inertia is, consider a string and put ... each mass m in a node, ... money and spending money? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If you ask the time to Nature, she just shrugs
    ... In order to see what inertia is, consider a string and put ... each mass m in a node, ... arbitrariness stands for the number of nodes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... And that says nothing at all about pecks of "inertia". ... Newton's first law is the definition of the principle of inertia, ... You said before that "inertia is the measure of mass", ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)