Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- From: "Herman Trivilino" <physhead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:02:29 -0500
<zxcv_890@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
> relativity seems to claim (among other things I'm sure) that you can't
> just describe the motion of an object and leave it at that -- you have
> to include the frame of reference that you took your measurement from,
> because the motion of the object will measure differently depending on
> your frame of reference.
Yes. That's true. But there's more to it than what you've satated. The
reason one needs to do what you've described is becasue all inertial
reference frames are equivalent. And it is one of the most profound facts
about the universe we live in. It's even got a name. The Principle of
Relativity. (It is also known as the First Postulate).
> My question is, this seems like such an
> obvious fact --I find it hard to believe that Newton (or at least one
> of his followers) didn't realize this.
Newton did realize this. It had been stated a generation earlier by
Galileo. It's the basis of what's called Galilean Relativity. What you
studied is often called Einsteinian Relativity.
Newton's First Law is actually an assertion that all inertial reference
frames are equivalent.
> And if Newton did know this,
> which frame of reference did he identify as the "true" one, and why?
I'm not sure. I do know, though, that later generations of physicists
(actually, they were called natural philosophers back then) referred to a
frame of reference they called the "fixed stars". It wasn't until a series
of experiements were done in the late 1800's and early 1900's (the most
famous being the Michaelson-Morley experiment of 1889 conducted at the Case
Western Reserve in Ohio) that the notion of a Newtonian "true" rest frame
was abandoned.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- From: zxcv_890
- Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- References:
- basic question classical v. relativity
- From: zxcv_890
- basic question classical v. relativity
- Prev by Date: Re: How to plot magnetic field lines from flux density?
- Next by Date: Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- Next by thread: Re: basic question classical v. relativity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
