Eventually the question of the equivalence of inertial reference frames will be focused on the embankment, Ve, versus the passenger train, Vn – Ve. In order prepare yourself for any questions directed at you there are some physical characteristics that’s should be reviewed as the reality is that Ve and Vn are definitely not equivalent frames in any sense approaching that asserted by sr theory,such as:

Physical Attributes of Ve. Mass grams x 10^27 6 Density grams/cm^3 5.52 Acceleration constant cm/sec^2 980 Velocity components km/sec Rotation (earth.) Equator .496 10 km radius at poles 7 x 10^4 km/sec Solar 29.80 Sun track 208

Volume km^3 1.09 x 10^12 Surface Area km^2 x 10^8 5.11

Circumference km 6378 Turning rate degrees/sec 10^-8. Escape velocity km/sec 11.2


Some scaled down solar system numbers:Earth radius 1 cm. sun diameter 109 cm. earth orbit radius 233 meters Pluto at 9 km Mercury at 87 meters.


When disussing the equivalence of inertial reference frames we see immediately that Ve, the embankment, AKA the planet earth, is orders of magnitude larger than all the inertial frames, Vn, n= 1,2 , , ,inf associated with Ve. An inescapable fact is that virtually all Vn necessarily ungoes acceleration in order to produce a condition of |Ve - Vn| > 0. Ve is a lumbering giant that enjoys all the benefits of straight-line motion as the turning rate is minisicule for all practical intents and purposes.

Newton's law of inertial is directly applicable to Ve in that all coordinate point on the surface or volume of Ve are known to any degree of accuracy desired to any significant point in the past, present or future, as are bodies at erst or moving in a straight line.

In measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve and Vn where Ve moving at 208 km/sec the proportional difference as 208/3/10^5 = 6.933 x 10^-4. When using a frame, Vn moving at 3600 km/hr, or 1 km/sec the proportial value is 6.966 x 10^-4. The difference in the two values is (6.966 - 6.333)x 10^-4 = 3.3 x 10^-6. The small dfference if not covered by experimetnal error can easily be taken as an equivalent measurement.

In any event, Ve is non-accelerating as a matter of physical law and is anything but equivalent to any Vn manifestily bound to the surface area of Ve for all velocities less than 11.2 km/sec.

To indicate the physical impossibility and irrationality of an observer on any Vn assuming his frame of reference at rest with respect to Ve let us have
Ve moving at 3600 km/hr for one hour leaving Vn staring at the high noon sun as the observer looks out the window on his train and sees Ve continually whizzing past. An observer that must know Ve is inertially infinite with respect to Vn, knows Ve does not and cannot acclerate, that all relative motion of Ve - Vn is due to the actual and real motion of Vn with respect to Ve =0. that Vn has inherited all the velocity and turning components of Ve , that Vn is unmistakably moving as exhited by the clickeity-clack of the wheels passing over the thermal expansion separation spacers in the tracks (oh yeah, this is relative motion isn't it?) , can see the tracks ahead worn and distorted by use and other environmental factors imposing a relative high frequency rate of change of the direction of motion of the Vn frame, can feel the motion of the so called Ve moving past, but cannot see nor feel the motion of his own frame moving as we all know it is moving, knows of the extremely close measuring of the speed of light relative to a reference frame moving at a huge rate >> than all "normal earth bound vehicles knows that Ve cannot be distinguished from a straight-line trajectory at the current time if ever
has no physical justification for assuming his position is at rest, especially when it is trivially simple to detect and measure non-accelerating motion of any one or more inertial reference frames moving such that |Vn - Vm| > 0.

And finally, for now, Einstein made the point that the measurement of the speed of light in vacuo was such such that all Vn should measure the same relative velocity of Vc = C, which in the matheamtics of Special Relativity means the Vn must set their velocity Vn =0 and Ve = what ever Vn was originally after Vn accelerated with respect to Ve. He also noted that a raven flying over a number of Vn would all measure the raven's relative velocity differently ,but that straight-line motion etc ,would be idential, though he ignored the question of measuring the raven flying past at .99999c, with no justification for omitting an essential physical parameter in measuring the realtive velocity of light by ignoring the observer's motion before the measurement even takes place. The justification given is that the observer doesn't know he is moving. These observers aren;t dead are they?

This contrivance must be considered a corruption of experimental data after the observer necessarily was subject to the same acceleration as the frame he is riding on. If he was numbed by drugs or something this state of ignorance apparently justifies his setting his frame at rest and into a physical condition that is never seen, is physically impossible to achieve and is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy, drugged, or otherwise.


Geistkiesel
Mother nature made it much more simple than some might bvelieve.

..Mother nature made it much more simple than some might bvelieve.
She sure did. Some of the really distant galaxies are receding from Earth at relativistic speeds. What of the hypothetical aliens that might truly inhabit such realms? Their visions of their surroundings are going to be really REALLY loused up if light moves relative to a fixed cosmic background grid, ie. "aether", instead of how relativity describes it as behaving.

But Einstein was RIGHT, so those aliens live on perfectly natural and viable planetoids way out there, just as we do... and light behaves relative to their little world just as sanely and securely as light behaves relative to our little world here. That's Relativity, that's Mother Nature, and that's utter simplicity.

.. Mother nature made it much more simple than some might believe.
She sure did. Thanks to Relativity, it is 100& assured that no object can OUTRUN being seen. Plus the reverse is also true: it is 100% guaranteed that you can see an object approaching before it slams into you. Nice of Mother Nature to arrange things so sanely and simply, isn't it?

She sure did. Some of the really distant galaxies are receding from Earth at relativistic speeds. What of the hypothetical aliens that might truly inhabit such realms? Their visions of their surroundings are going to be really REALLY loused up if light moves relative to a fixed cosmic background grid, ie. "aether", instead of how relativity describes it as behaving.

This is physics forum, so if you are going to make a statement that distant galaxies ae recedinbg at reklativistic speeds you must prove it,

the statement by: citing the source of your information that it describdes the measurement process that produced the data of "relativistic velocities and define the inertial frame from which the measurements were taken and then prove the light does not move relative to a fixed cosmic background aether, or [*} tht light does not move with respect to an absolute velocity = 0 frame of reference and that the MM experiment was not a null or 0 result, then if an inertial frame is moving in the x direction as photons are emitted perpendicular to the x direction froma photon emitter/absorber pair (peap) aimed directly at a peap directly opposite to the emitter where the emitter/absorber pair were calibrated at Ve = 0, before launch,such that the motion of the photons thereafter are independent of the motion of the frame, and then prove that these photons do not provide a velocity = 0 frame of reference for light emitted in the x direction, or that absolute zero velocity is an impossible condition to measure the velociy of physcal matter with respect to the peap photons moving independently with respect to the motion of the source of the photons, i.e the frame and/or the emitting peap.

Where do you get "cosmic background aether" anyway? You do understaqnd do you not that Michelson-Morely experiment in he 1880s was verified many times over by Dayton Miller (Vol 5 The Reviews of Modern Physics" 1933 pp 202 - 243 where a background relative motion of 8km/sec was measured?



But Einstein was RIGHT, so those aliens live on perfectly natural and viable planetoids way out there, just as we do... and light behaves relative to their little world just as sanely and securely as light behaves relative to our little world here. That's Relativity, that's Mother Nature, and that's utter simplicity.

Your big word above "RIGHT" is not a word with physical meaning. If you say Einstein was "RIGHT", you must prove it and you must prove it, maybe even by disproving the post above, which you implied was erroneous.

You must prove the ratio of inertial mass of Ve/Vn is not effectively infinite, and that the Ve and Vn fames of reference are equivalent as described by SR theory and that all Vn bound to Ve with Vn - Ve < 11.2 km/sec (the Ve escape velocity) do not necessarily accelerate with respect to Ve before a |vn - Ve| > 0. is observed. and if you do claim the source of the unaccelerated Vn > 0, and that assuming the earth velocity of 208 km/sec that the proportional ratios of (208 Km/sec)/(3 x 10^8) = 6.933x 10^-7 when compared to a measurement of an added 1800 km/hr = 1800/3600 km /sec = .5 km/sec, where .5 + 208 = 208.5 this proportioned as same 208.5/3x10^8 = 6.95x 10^-7 and comparing the two ratios as a difference or (6.93 - 6.95)x 10^-70 = 1.7 x 10^-9, supports the assertion that the measurment if the relative speed of light between the the 208 km/sec frame and the 208.5 km/sec is not inconsistent with the assertion that the relative speed of light between frame and photon is always the same, i.e 3x10^8 m/sec.- and then explain away Dayton Miller's experimental results that were consistent with the MM experiment, which was not a null result, i.e. not 0, unless claimed differently by the ignorant or by liars.

An then why just explain why you people always subtract out real motion in order to justify your results? This is sheer dishonesty.
You are holding yourself out as a Special Relativity Theorist, so do your thing with some physics instead of substituting your of bullshit.

She sure did. Some of the really distant galaxies are receding from Earth at relativistic speeds. What of the hypothetical aliens that might truly inhabit such realms? Their visions of their surroundings are going to be really REALLY loused up if light moves relative to a fixed cosmic background grid, ie. "aether", instead of how relativity describes it as behaving.

Let us see if we can answer your question of how really loused up uhey can be if light moves relative to a "fixed cosmic background". We will step through a very simple and widely studied problem. But then your answer is left hanging, turning, slowly, slowly in he wind. Except that they see what we see so we are as loused up as they are. But your "fixed cosmic background" is ambiguous and is not anything I said or implied and vast stellar concepts like "cosmic' make me dizzy and I have o sit down. I am a simple man and out here in Arizona I am forced to use the postlates that govern the motion of light. I am referring to the fact that the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source of the light and the speed of light is a constan 3x 10^5 km/sec.
Starting from a pair of photon emitted simultaneously, in opposite directions on a moving frame to the right at velocity Vm wrt Ve, the embankment, we first see the L (left moving even when reflected back, once an L always an L) photon arrive at the L reflector before he R photon arrives at thr R refelector, like below:The < and > arrows indicate the motion direction and point of location in time
L|---|<__________________|---|_________________>|---|---|R
the frame has shifted to the right vt during the time the L photon moved to meet the L reflector, while the R photon has 2vt space to cover + a dx more to account for he frame moving whene the R photon crosses 2vt space. Finally R reaches the R reflector. Notice, during this phase the photons are moving in the same direction for a dt = t2, the exta motion covering the space of 2vt.
Now, both photons are moving directly at each other, therfore their midpoint, or collision point, is rigidly defined, with respect to the origin, the point of emission of he photons. This 0 point of two moving photon lines are invariant with Vp = 0, absolutely. The point of emission doesn't drift, and is not affected by nuclear blasts.
----->|___vt_______|____vt_______|||< delta x = vt2
After arriving 2vt short, turns out to be ct2 = 2vt1 + vt2 , where t2 = t1(2v)/C - v). This comes from the fact that the ct2 distance is equated to the 2vt + the little dx , wher dx = vt2.
It is straight forward to determine the photon will a arrive simultaneously at the newly shifted midpoint exactly, and the the time difference in length of the photon path during the round trip wrt Vp = 0 is exactly t2, where Vp is the photon reference frame where t0 is defined when the photons were emitted. This is pretty close to Ve, the embankment as far as the resolution of measurements are significant.

What reference frame are we using? The one point, invariant for eternity, where the phoons were emitted, which is as rigidly defined as the point where two photon collide. Here the emission and collision points are defined wrt an invariant coordinate system, that in the terms of your understanding, the velocity of the coordinate points defining the the photon emission position is exactly zero. Not philosophically zero, or theoretically zero, but absolute zero If t2 = 0 then one can assured that the frame motion is zero. If t2 > 0 the frame is in motion. and SR theorists consciously ignore the magic of relative motion of frame and photons.


But Einstein was RIGHT, so those aliens live on perfectly natural and viable planetoids way out there, just as we do... and light behaves relative to their little world just as sanely and securely as light behaves relative to our little world here. That's Relativity, that's Mother Nature, and that's utter simplicity.
You use the word "RIGHT" as if big letters prove the correctness of the word. Why don't you ask some of your science friends to show you how to prove a scientific statement, or claim, so you wont clutter up the threads.

Prove that Einstein was RIGHT. Can you dio this without propaganda? I mean this is a science forum so I assume the minimum requirement is some attempt at proof should be offered, or have we seen the extent your science? Can you criticize the little note above without propaganda?

geistkiesel:

As you know, no reference frame is preferred in relativity. This is why your solar system parameters are normally irrelevant for many problems.

6. When disussing the equivalence of inertial reference frames we see immediately that Ve, the embankment, AKA the planet earth, is orders of magnitude larger than all the inertial frames, Vn, n= 1,2 , , ,inf associated with Ve.

The Earth is not a reference frame. A reference frame is an imaginary construct, as I have explained in a separate thread. We can choose a reference frame which is stationary with respect to the Earth if we wish, since such a choice is arbitrary. The physical parameters (such as mass) of the Earth are irrelevant to the reference frame, since a reference frame is not a physical object like the Earth.

Ve is a lumbering giant that enjoys all the benefits of straight-line motion as the turning rate is minisicule for all practical intents and purposes.

Not for all intents and purposes. Only for some.

8. In measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve and Vn where Ve moving at 208 km/sec the proportional difference as 208/3/10^5 = 6.933 x 10^-4. When using a frame, Vn moving at 3600 km/hr, or 1 km/sec the proportial value is 6.966 x 10^-4. The difference in the two values is (6.966 - 6.333)x 10^-4 = 3.3 x 10^-6. The small dfference if not covered by experimetnal error can easily be taken as an equivalent measurement.

Again, not quite right. In many instances it can be safe to ignore these things, but in some it becomes vitally important to consider them. They are not always outside the scope of experimental error, as you claim.

9. In any event, Ve is non-accelerating as a matter of physical law and is anything but equivalent to any Vn manifestily bound to the surface area of Ve for all velocities less than 11.2 km/sec.

Actually, the Earth continually accelerates towards the sun.

10. To indicate the physical impossibility and irrationality of an observer on any Vn assuming his frame of reference at rest with respect to Ve let us have
1. Ve moving at 3600 km/hr for one hour leaving Vn staring at the high noon sun
2. as the observer looks out the window on his train and sees Ve continually whizzing past.
3. An observer that must know Ve is inertially infinite with respect to Vn,

The term "inertially infinite" means nothing in physics.

4. knows Ve does not and cannot acclerate,

An observer in a train sees the Earth accelerate underneath him. This has been pointed out to you before. Have you forgotten?

5. that all relative motion of Ve - Vn is due to the actual and real motion of Vn with respect to Ve =0.

Only in the Earth frame.

6. that Vn has inherited all the velocity and turning components of Ve

In some other frame (e.g. sun-centred), perhaps.

7. , that Vn is unmistakably moving as exhited by the clickeity-clack of the wheels passing over the thermal expansion separation spacers in the tracks (oh yeah, this is relative motion isn't it?)

That could be equally due to the clickety-clack of the spacers passing over the wheels.

11. knows that Ve cannot be distinguished from a straight-line trajectory at the current time if ever

Then where did you get figures such as the orbital speed of the Earth from?

12. has no physical justification for assuming his position is at rest, especially when it is trivially simple to detect and measure non-accelerating motion of any one or more inertial reference frames moving such that |Vn - Vm| > 0.

This is wrong. An observer who is stationary in an inertial reference frame has every justification for considering himself at rest. Apart from anything else, there is no conceivable experiment he can do which will show otherwise.

11. And finally, for now, Einstein made the point that the measurement of the speed of light in vacuo was such such that all Vn should measure the same relative velocity of Vc = C, which in the matheamtics of Special Relativity means the Vn must set their velocity Vn =0 and Ve = what ever Vn was originally after Vn accelerated with respect to Ve.

That is not necessary. The speed of light is c in all inertial frames, not just ones in which the train is stationary.

13. This contrivance must be considered a corruption of experimental data after the observer necessarily was subject to the same acceleration as the frame he is riding on. If he was numbed by drugs or something this state of ignorance apparently justifies his setting his frame at rest and into a physical condition that is never seen, is physically impossible to achieve and is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy, drugged, or otherwise.

But this situation is not impossible to achieve. Haven't you ever been on a train? The situation is one of common experience.

JamesR, get in your car and drive at 100 miles per hour. Does your car have enough
horsepower to accelerate the mass of the Earth to 100 miles per hour while you remain motionless?
Yes, I know that acceleration is in a non-inertial frame, but the argument is used by
relativists all the time about the weight of fuel and energy it would take to reach .99c,
so, I guess we can forget about that argument because it relies on a 'history'. Has
nothing to do with a relative velocity in an inertial frame, correct? Just watch out for
that cop with a radar gun while you are traveling at 100 miles per hour. He will set
you straight in an instant concerning your dyslectic view of which is moving!

by JamesR:
"This is wrong. An observer who is stationary in an inertial reference frame has every justification for considering himself at rest. Apart from anything else, there is no conceivable experiment he can do which will show otherwise."

JamesR, get in your car and drive at 100 miles per hour. Does your car have enough horsepower to accelerate the mass of the Earth to 100 miles per hour while you remain motionless?

Not by itself, no.

But in this case there is another, inertial force acting to accelerate the Earth, so the car does not need to supply all the energy itself.

Yes, I know that acceleration is in a non-inertial frame, but the argument is used by relativists all the time about the weight of fuel and energy it would take to reach .99c, so, I guess we can forget about that argument because it relies on a 'history'.

Please explain.

Has nothing to do with a relative velocity in an inertial frame, correct? Just watch out for that cop with a radar gun while you are traveling at 100 miles per hour. He will set you straight in an instant concerning your dyslectic view of which is moving!

The cop only cares about the relative speed of my car and the Earth, in the end.

I suppose it correlates with SR's mathematics that you could consume all the energy
in the universe and never reach 'c' relative to your starting point. Of course, that is
built into SR's mathematics, as reaching 'c' relative to your starting point is an impossibility due to the mathematics. But do the maths truley represent reality? It
is the same as the old problem of crossing a room by halving the remaining distance
each step. You could move for almost infinity and never reach the other side. You
would consume all the energy in the universe to power your movements. It is impossible to reach the other side because of the way the problem is modeled.
But in the real world, we don't have to use that model and we can cross the room.
Is SR such a model?

2inquisitive,

SR has mountains of experimental evidence to support it. It is not just theoretical.

Yes, and Newton has mountains of experimental evidence to support him, too.

Yes, but Newton falls completely apart way before you hit .5c.

It is the same as the old problem of crossing a room by halving the remaining distance each step. You could move for almost infinity and never reach the other side. You would consume all the energy in the universe to power your movements. It is impossible to reach the other side because of the way the problem is modeled. But in the real world, we don't have to use that model and we can cross the room.Copy and paste argument?

The reason your 'half the room' analogy doesn't work is that we are unable to divide accurately enough to keep the process going. You have a finite resolution within which to step. The model is COMPLETELY accurate for someone who keeps going half the distance. It's just that they are incapable.

This analogy just doesn't mesh with relativity.

by Persol:
"Yes, but Newton falls completely apart way before you hit .5c."
================================================== ====

Ah, yes. Despite the mountains of evidence supporting it, Newtonian mechanics are
inaccurate under certain circumstances. Despite mountains of evidence supporting it,
Special Relativity is inaccurate under certain circumstances. Tell me Persol, what
velocity does a Doppler shift of z=6.3 equate to? Which Doppler shift formula do you
use? I know of three different models that give different velocities. Which one is the
correct model? The universe is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light,
according to some physicists. Relativists say 'space itself' is expanding, whatever that
means. Nothingness is expanding so it takes light longer to get here because the
wavelength is 'stretched' or some similar argument. But if the speed of light is constant
for all observers in an inertial frame of reference, it shouldn't matter if 'space' is expanding, contracting or doing the twist. But maybe the reason so many distant
galaxies can exceed the speed of light without becoming 'infinately massive' and
collapsing the universe is because they are in an accelerating frame of reference,
a non-inertial frame. Exactly how much acceleration is necessary before an inertial
frame becomes a non-inertial frame? Maybe new physics could grow from this loop-
hole without having to invalidate SR. Just a thought.

2inquisitive:

Ah, yes. Despite the mountains of evidence supporting it, Newtonian mechanics are inaccurate under certain circumstances. Despite mountains of evidence supporting it, Special Relativity is inaccurate under certain circumstances.

Where is SR inaccurate?

Tell me Persol, what velocity does a Doppler shift of z=6.3 equate to? Which Doppler shift formula do you use?

The Relativistic one.

I know of three different models that give different velocities. Which one is the correct model?

What are the three models?

The universe is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light,
according to some physicists. Relativists say 'space itself' is expanding, whatever that means.

You could easily find out if you read an introductory text on general relativity. Why not make an effort?

Nothingness is expanding so it takes light longer to get here because the wavelength is 'stretched' or some similar argument.

Not nothingness. Spacetime.

But if the speed of light is constant for all observers in an inertial frame of reference, it shouldn't matter if 'space' is expanding, contracting or doing the twist.

Shouldn't matter to what? Be specific. What shouldn't it affect?

But maybe the reason so many distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light without becoming 'infinately massive' and collapsing the universe is because they are in an accelerating frame of reference, a non-inertial frame.

A couple of problems here. First, relativistic mass increase does not cause increased gravity, as you assume. Second, the motion of galaxies is inertial. They are acted on by gravity, and little else. In GR, free fall frames are inertial.

Exactly how much acceleration is necessary before an inertial
frame becomes a non-inertial frame?

More than zero.

Maybe new physics could grow from this loop-hole without having to invalidate SR. Just a thought.

What loop hole?

2inquisitive:



"Where is SR inaccurate?"
Explain how you can calculate a relative velocity of a galaxie greater than 'c' using
SR's frames of reference and mathematics. Or do you disagree that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light?


"The Relativistic one."
So you believe the other models are incorrect?


"What are the three models?"
cut and paste:
"In the star which is at rest with respect to us, or in a laboratory standard, the line wavelengths are 393 & 397 nm from Ca II [ionized calcium]; 410, 434, 486 & 656 nm from H I [atomic hydrogen]; 518 nm from Mg I [neutral magnesium]; and 589 nm from Na I [neutral sodium]. By measuring the amount of the shift to the red, we can determine that the bright galaxy is moving away at 3,000 km/sec, which is 1 percent of the speed of light, because its lines are shifted in wavelength by 1 percent to the red. The redshift z is defined such that:
lambda(observed)
1+z = ----------------
lambda(emitted)

which is
397 401 414 438 491 523 595 663
1+z = --- = --- = --- = --- = --- = --- = --- = --- = 1.01
393 397 410 434 486 518 589 656

in this case so z = 0.01 for the bright galaxy. The radial velocity is usually approximated by v(rad) = cz, where c is the speed of light, The medium bright galaxy is moving away at 15,000 km/sec with z = 0.05, while the faintest and most distant galaxy is moving away at 75,000 km/sec with z = 0.25. When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm
I would have thought you would have been at least aware of the different models, JamesR. Or do you just reject them out of hand? Do you believe
Ned Wright is a 'crackpot' along with the model of the universe's accelerating
expansion at velocities faster than light? I can't claim to know what is true.


"You could easily find out if you read an introductory text on general relativity. Why not make an effort?"
How new of an Edition would I need to get?



"Not nothingness. Spacetime."
Oh. OK.



"Shouldn't matter to what? Be specific. What shouldn't it affect?"
I thought I was clear, the constancy of the speed of light for any inertial
observer anywhere in the universe. Specifically, 10 billion lightyears in
10 billion years, for instance. But a lightyear in one location may vary from
what a lightyear measures when a bunch of them are added together, huh?


"A couple of problems here. First, relativistic mass increase does not cause increased gravity, as you assume. Second, the motion of galaxies is inertial. They are acted on by gravity, and little else. In GR, free fall frames are inertial."
So, relativistic mass is not the same as 'real' mass, and no matter how much it increases, gravity does not increase. Is it like 'potential' mass? The motion
of galaxies due to gravity is inertial? Guess I was wrong there too. But, of
course, there is no force of gravity in GR, is there? There is no 'force' pushing
the universe apart, it is because spacetime is expanding, correct?


"More than zero."



"What loop hole?"
Light is not restricted to 299.792,458m/s in a non-inertial frame, is what I
have read in published papers by astrophysicists. Are they wrong, too?

Probably not, 2inquisitive.

Note Geistkiesel's original stratements are sometimes in blue to minimize confusion of what the participants are talking about.

geistkiesel:

As you know, no reference frame is preferred in relativity. This is why your solar system parameters are normally irrelevant for many problems.

Relativity is in error if they fail to recognze that the embank,emty is an effective frame of reference, and by your statement SR is wrong. All experiments with relative motion if any frame and the planet, the embank,emt, it is the em,bankment that does not accelerate, and the Vn, all others, that do accelerate. All Vn > Ve = 0 [or is measurably indistinguishable from straight-line motion.]


6. When discussing the equivalence of inertial reference frames we see immediately that Ve, the embankment, AKA the planet earth, is orders of magnitude larger than all the inertial frames, Vn, n= 1,2 , , ,inf associated with Ve.
”

The Earth is not a reference frame. A reference frame is an imaginary construct, as I have explained in a separate thread. We can choose a reference frame which is stationary with respect to the Earth if we wish, since such a choice is arbitrary. The physical parameters (such as mass) of the Earth are irrelevant to the reference frame, since a reference frame is not a physical object like the Earth.
A reference frame is not a physical object? Observers then must not be physical objects as they are often discussed as riding on reference frames. Motion, acceleration, mass weight must also be imaginary artifacts.
What is real James R.



Quote geistkiesel
"Ve is a lumbering giant that enjoys all the benefits of straight-line motion as the turning rate is minisicule for all practical intents and purposes."
”

Not for all intents and purposes. Only for some.

Which purpsoses does the statement not apply?


In measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve and Vn where Ve moving at 208 km/sec the proportional difference as 208/3/10^5 = 6.933 x 10^-4. When using a frame, Vn moving at 3600 km/hr, or 1 km/sec the proportial value is 6.966 x 10^-4. The difference in the two values is (6.966 - 6.333)x 10^-4 = 3.3 x 10^-6. The small dfference if not covered by experimetnal error can easily be taken as an equivalent measurement.

Again, not quite right. In many instances it can be safe to ignore these things, but in some it becomes vitally important to consider them. They are not always outside the scope of experimental error, as you claim.

What instances? Which are vital? What in the hell are you talking about?



quote geistkiesel 9. In any event, Ve is non-accelerating as a matter of physical law and is anything but equivalent to any Vn manifestily bound to the surface area of Ve for all velocities less than 11.2 km/sec."

Actually, the Earth continually accelerates towards the sun.

All Vn are slaved to the earth and the acceleration we are discussing is instantaneous acceleration as when the train accelerates from the station. The earth is moving with constant speed and slowly changing direction with respect to the sun.


10. To indicate the physical impossibility and irrationality of an observer on any Vn assuming his frame of reference at rest with respect to Ve let us have
1. Ve moving at 3600 km/hr for one hour leaving Vn staring at the high noon sun
2. as the observer looks out the window on his train and sees Ve continually whizzing past.
3. An observer must know Ve is inertially infinite with respect to Vn,


The term "inertially infinite" means nothing in physics.

Inertia means a resistance to change. The ratio of the mass of the earth, a measure of resistance to change, relative to any other earth based Vn is measurably infinite.

[Observers on the train] knows Ve does not and cannot accelerate,

An observer in a train sees the Earth accelerate underneath him. This has been pointed out to you before. Have you forgotten?

No, I haven't forgfotten what you said. All observers on the train can point to accelerometers on the train and the Ve and find positive recordings on the train and zero recordings on the Ve, have you forgotten?

Buit as you said above all these frames are imaginary in the imaginary world of SR.

5. that all relative motion of Ve - Vn is due to the actual and real motion of Vn with respect to Ve =0.


Only in the Earth frame.

Well at least you recognize the concept on the earth that all relative motion is due to the actual movement of Vn with respect to Ve moving with respect to Vn. This applies in the universe James R.



6. that Vn has inherited all the velocity and turning components of Ve.

In some other frame (e.g. sun-centred), perhaps.

You mean Fords and Chevrolets do not inherit the velocity of the earth that they move on?
You should check on the inconsistencioes of your statements in this post.

7. that Vn is unmistakably moving as exhibited by the clickeity-clack of the wheels passing over the thermal expansion separation spacers in the tracks (oh yeah, this is relative motion isn't it?)
That could be equally due to the clickety-clack of the spacers passing over the wheels.
No again, it is because the train accelerated and the earth did not accelerate, remember?



[Everyone] knows that Ve cannot be distinguished from a straight-line trajectory at the current time if ever.

Then where did you get figures such as the orbital speed of the Earth from?
From calculations and the laws of physics. Just because one cannot measure something directly does not mean that the trajectory cannot be determined from the laws of physics.

1[An observer] has no physical justification for assuming his position is at rest, especially when it is trivially simple to detect and measure non-accelerating motion of any one or more inertial reference frames moving such that |Vn - Vm| > 0.

This is wrong. An observer who is stationary in an inertial reference frame has every justification for considering himself at rest. Apart from anything else, there is no conceivable experiment he can do which will show otherwise.

If an observer acclerated with respect to Ve and knows it from sensation and accelerometers on the train and the Ve, then he has no justification except an imaginary one, for assuiming he is at rest. Imaginary justification meanining "make believe", "pretend", "fantansy", "insanity" (if really believed).

11. And finally, for now, Einstein made the point that the measurement of the speed of light in vacuo was such such that all Vn should measure the same relative velocity of Vc = C, which in the matheamtics of Special Relativity means the Vn must set their velocity Vn =0 and Ve = what ever Vn was originally after Vn accelerated with respect to Ve.

That is not necessary. The speed of light is c in all inertial frames, not just ones in which the train is stationary.
You edid not respond to the statement which said that in SR the real velocityof moving frames is set top zero in order that the speed of light always is measured as C. The speed of a physical system is specifcally and threoretically ignored, reality is ignored and this is what you teach students?.

13. This contrivance must be considered a corruption of experimental data after the observer necessarily was subject to the same acceleration as the frame he is riding on. If he was numbed by drugs or something this state of ignorance apparently justifies his setting his frame at rest and into a physical condition that is never seen, is physically impossible to achieve and is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy, be he drugged, or otherwise.


But this situation is not impossible to achieve. Haven't you ever been on a train? The situation is one of common experience. choice is arbitrary. The physical parameters (such as mass) of the Earth are irrelevant to the reference frame, since a reference frame is not a physical object like the Earth.
Kangaroo gibberish again, pure kangaroo gibberish.

Then why, in the development of SFR are physical frames used in the constuction of the "Theory". Wgy are real situations used in building the models? So, everything is imaginary? I believe it. SR is imaginary. James R has imaginary statements learned from not just kangaroos, but very stupid kangaroos.Nothing is real.

Actually, the Earth continually accelerates towards the sun.
No, the earth moves with a constant speed but slowly changing direction with respect to the sun, as do all objects attached to the earth, equally. No acceleration force is felt by the earth or lesser frames attached thereto.



The term "inertially infinite" means nothing in physics.
The wiord "inertial" means a "resistance to change" and the ratio of the resistance to change, the inertia, of the earth to any object on the earth is infinite. Let me introduce you to a physical concept. The mass of the earth is 6x10^27 grams. You pick the mass of any passenger train, calculate the ratio of the respective masses. I say you get "infinite" as an answer.



An observer in a train sees the Earth accelerate underneath him. This has been pointed out to you before. Have you forgotten?

Have you foprgottren that the passenger FEELS the acceleration and does not see any forms on the embankment reacting to any acceleraion. Do you know the dioference between "see:" and "feel"? Acceleraomeers attached tot he embankment and the train as the train accelerates from the station will only eflect accelerations on the train. Do you know this?

Any physical test capable of measuring acceleraion will only measure train acceleration. Get this in your head James R. But then the world in your head is imaginary isn't it?


Geistkiesel said "5. that all relative motion of Ve - Vn is due to the actual and real motion of Vn with respect to Ve = 0."
”
and James R responded:
Only in the Earth frame.

You mean then that all earth based relative motion experiments the actual motion is due to the real motion of Vn, like the train we discussed above. I agree. But then a space ship acceleratedf from earth may always refer its current velocity to the original frame, so the actual motion is not confined only "on" the earth frame, wherever the space ship is located in the universe.



That could be equally due to the clickety-clack of the spacers passing over the wheels.
No, the clickety-clack is due to the train moving that accelerated with respect to the Ve. Remember?


This is wrong. An observer who is stationary in an inertial reference frame has every justification for considering himself at rest. Apart from anything else, there is no conceivable experiment he can do which will show otherwise.
I will prove you wrong here. See the thread published ASAP, the "Proof that James R has manifest a gross error in SR.



That is not necessary. The speed of light is c in all inertial frames, not just ones in which the train is stationary.

No, you have it all wriong and you are consciously trying to hide a fact. The fact is that there is a real relative motion of frame and photon, where the frame velocity is less than the photon velocity. Sure measuring the velocity of light as C is a real result, measuring the relative velocity of light with respect to the frame you always get C - Vn < C, which is a relative velocity.
James R, this is too simple even for you. Light travels faster than inertial frames by an amount C - Vn < C. Now is that so confusing?


13. This contrivance must be considered a corruption of experimental data after the observer necessarily was subject to the same acceleration as the frame he is riding on. If he was numbed by drugs or something this state of ignorance apparently justifies his setting his frame at rest and into a physical condition that is never seen, is physically impossible to achieve and is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy, drugged, or otherwise.
”

But this situation is not impossible to achieve. Haven't you ever been on a train? The situation is one of common experience.

I have been on many trains. When conscious I always know if the train is moving or not. I never considered the land moving and myself stationary. I learned basic physics is school, the early years in fact. Where did you learn physics, from kangaroos?

Ve is a lumbering giant that enjoys all the benefits of straight-line motion as the turning rate is minisicule for all practical intents and purposes.
”

Not for all intents and purposes. Only for some.

Which purposes oes it not apply?

8. In measuring the speed of light with respect to Ve and Vn where Ve moving at 208 km/sec the proportional difference as 208/3/10^5 = 6.933 x 10^-4. When using a frame, Vn moving at 3600 km/hr, or 1 km/sec the proportial value is 6.966 x 10^-4. The difference in the two values is (6.966 - 6.333)x 10^-4 = 3.3 x 10^-6. The small dfference if not covered by experimetnal error can easily be taken as an equivalent measurement.

Again, not quite right. In many instances it can be safe to ignore these things, but in some it becomes vitally important to consider them. They are not always outside the scope of experimental error, as you claim.

When are they not always outside the scope of experimental error? When are theysafe to ignore? Specifically.


9. In any event, Ve is non-accelerating as a matter of physical law and is anything but equivalent to any Vn manifestily bound to the surface area of Ve for all velocities less than 11.2 km/sec.
”

Actually, the Earth continually accelerates towards the sun.
We are discussiong instantantous accelerations, and you know it.


Inertia, the resistance to change, can be referred toas the realtive masses of objects when comparing the respective inertia. The ratio of the inertia of the earth frame to any other earth borne frame is infinite. Let me be the first to introiduce you to a new physical concept.



An observer in a train sees the Earth accelerate underneath him. This has been pointed out to you before. Have you forgotten?

An observer on the train feels, senses, sees, and ,easures acceleration by instrumentation and personal observation. All such mmeasurements on the earth frame are null, zero, don't you remember I pointed this out to you many times?

5. that all relative motion of Ve - Vn is due to the actual and real motion of Vn with respect to Ve =0.
”

Only in the Earth frame.

No, everywhere. All space ships accelerating with respect to Ve may take their measured velocity with them to the ends of the universe.

[All earth based]Vn has inherited all the velocity and turning components of Ve


In some other frame (e.g. sun-centred), perhaps.

Read it again james R. I said all earth based Vn have inherited al Ve motion components. The straight-line motion of the earth cannot be measurably demonstrated differently.

Vn is unmistakably moving as exhibited by the clickity-clack of the wheels passing over the thermal expansion separation spacers in the tracks (oh yeah, this is relative motion isn't it?)
”

That could be equally due to the clickety-clack of the spacers passing over the wheels.
No it could not be "equally due" to the earth turning the wheels because the earth didn't accelerate with respect to the train, the train accelerated with respect to the earth. Go check out the engine usually found in the forward end of the train. See if they have a steam pressure established, or electricity generated from diesel engines, or whatever. See if there is POWER generated to the wheels of the locomotive engine delivering power to the wheels, that are hooked to the trailing train. Check it out imaginary one, check it out.

Everyone knows that Ve cannot be distinguished from a straight-line trajectory at the current time, if ever
Then where did you get figures such as the orbital speed of the Earth from?
The 208 km/sec figure (which is not the earth-sun orbit velocity, it is the sun velocity dragging the earth/solar system along with it) I got from Vol 5 Reviews of Modern Physics 1933 202 - 243, D. Miller.

I said you cannot make a measurement and distinguish anything but straight-line motion of the earth. The orbital speed comes from a calculation knowing the distance of the earth from the sun and the fact that the eartth orbits the sun, but you cannot make a measurement of this. This is a conclusion from data and the known laws of physics. Can you measure the instantaneous curvature if the orbit? This curvature cannot be measured i n any earth based relative velocity experiment.

[An observer] has no physical justification for assuming his position is at rest, especially when it is trivially simple to detect and measure non-accelerating motion of any one or more inertial reference frames moving such that |Vn - Vm| > 0.

This is wrong. An observer who is stationary in an inertial reference frame has every justification for considering himself at rest. Apart from anything else, there is no conceivable experiment he can do which will show otherwise.
This is going to hurt James R, painfully hurt, when I demonstrate just the opposite.

And finally, for now, Einstein made the point that the measurement of the speed of light in vacuo was such that all Vn should measure the same relative velocity of Vc = C, which in the mathematics of Special Relativity means the Vn must set their velocity Vn = 0 and Ve = what ever Vn was originally after Vn accelerated with respect to Ve.


That is not necessary. The speed of light is c in all inertial frames, not just ones in which the train is stationary.
Prove it. All you do is make these statements. Why do not you prove some of them, at least one of them?

You have never answered this direct question: Is the measure of the speed of light from a moving frame as C, the same as measuring the realative speed of light with respect to the frame?

The speed of light may be C in all reference, frames but the relative motion of reference frames is real and C - Vn < C > 0 is real also. If the reference frame is moving, with respect to Ve for instance, then the relative speed of frame and photon is C -Vn < C > 0.
Geistkiesel

Probably not, 2inquisitive.That was in answer to the poster's remark about lightspeed not being restricted to C in non-inertial frames, according to physicists, and are they wrong. But I think that lightspeed is restricted to C even in non-inertial frames, James. I think that an observer in a non-inertial frame can see light bend, can see light's frequency distort, but not change its speed!
In GR, free fall frames are inertial.
That is a mighty interesting concept -- care to expound some more?
Not nothingness, spacetime
That's one other mystifying remark of yours, James. Yes I know that cosmologist want to ascribe expansion to space/time itself. But RELATIVITY demonstrates that empty space is definitely NOT a thing, ie. it's NOT an aether -- it's no thing. In my modest mind, I see NO WAY to reconcile your statement. If galaxies are moving away from each other, then the mechanics, the dynamics, are perfectly equivalent to a scenario of just that: objects in motion in the vacuum of space. I see no value in claiming that "space is expanding"... to me, that remark seems like just so much fluff, so much hype. Please expound!

by dristam:
"That's one other mystifying remark of yours, James. Yes I know that cosmologist want to ascribe expansion to space/time itself. But RELATIVITY demonstrates that empty space is definitely NOT a thing, ie. it's NOT an aether -- it's no thing"
================================================== =====

Actually, dristam, most cosmologists like to describe the accelerating expansion of the universe to a 'repusive gravity' force. But in the geodesic
theory of General Relativity, even gravity is not a force, so how can there
be repulsive gravity? JamesR is a relativist, of course.

.. most cosmologists like to describe the accelerating expansion of the universe to a 'repusive gravity' force. .. JamesR is a relativist, of course.
And you are.. what?
Hey.. I was NOT trying to identify the cause of expansion in that post of mine you cited.. no! I was, as I said, only examining the mechanics, the dynamics. I cannot differentiate *plain* motion of the galaxies versus some phenomenon attributed to "expanding spacetime".

by dristam:
"And you are.. what?"
================================================== ============

A realist.

geistkiesel:

As you know, no reference frame is preferred in relativity. This is why your solar system parameters are normally irrelevant for many problems.



The Earth is not a reference frame. A reference frame is an imaginary construct, as I have explained in a separate thread. We can choose a reference frame which is stationary with respect to the Earth if we wish, since such a choice is arbitrary. The physical parameters (such as mass) of the Earth are irrelevant to the reference frame, since a reference frame is not a physical object like the Earth.

These statements seem like you really mean them as they are written. Particularly interesting are the sentences,

"The Earth is not a reference frame.
A reference frame is an imaginary construct,
as I have explained in a separate thread."

Well if your imaginary world cannot absorb the fact that the earth, Ve, is massively so ovewhelming larger than any other inertial mass object that moves in relation to Ve, like railroad trains, that Ve is effectively and physically inert, motion wise, with respect to the moving object, which necessarily accelerated, while the Ve remained inert, Ve = 0 when relative motion is observed. The imaginary world of yours assumes a direct contradiction to physical reality, that Vn > Ve when we observe relative motion between them, always, only.

Therefore, whether you prefer it or not, that Ve is a preferred frame of reference, that's just the way it is, really I mean, not imaginary.

All reference frames bear no resemblance to physical objects, like iron and aluminum and water amd wood, smashing pumpkins and people counting crows? All of your physics is mathamatical and imaginary then, bearing no resemblance to the reality of the items I listed above and the motion, relative and absolute, exhibited by them is what? Is it that all motion of physical objects is all imaginary also? And this your world.

That's what you say to me, and you wonder, James R, why I challenge special relativity? Well, you shouldn't wonder anymore, nevermore.

See my post James R, regarding remembering..., you personally may consider that post a personal poem from me to you.
Geistkiesel

A realist.
A for-the-moment very-confused realist, gauging by your posts heretofore. :D

2inquisitive,

SR has mountains of experimental evidence to support it. It is not just theoretical.
Just a few small hills of your proof will do. References please, or clearly explain the experimental conditions.

A for-the-moment very-confused realist, gauging by your posts heretofore. :D
Dristam, Do you ever get to the physics of the matter, or are you able to point with specificity to another's statement and criticize that statement, exclusively?

I haven't seen this ability of yours yet.

geistkiesel:

Your seem to have responded to my post twice. I'm not sure which response you want me to look at, so I'll just consider the first one.

A reference frame is not a physical object? Observers then must not be physical objects as they are often discussed as riding on reference frames.

Your logic doesn't follow.

For an explanation of reference frames, please see my thread titled "What is a reference frame?"

You: "Ve is a lumbering giant that enjoys all the benefits of straight-line motion as the turning rate is minisicule for all practical intents and purposes."

Me: Not for all intents and purposes. Only for some.

You: Which purpsoses does the statement not apply?

To take one obvious example, if you are looking at the motions of planets in orbit around the Sun, the Earth's motion cannot be considered to be a straight line, and its "turning rate" becomes quite significant.

All Vn are slaved to the earth and the acceleration we are discussing is instantaneous acceleration as when the train accelerates from the station. The earth is moving with constant speed and slowly changing direction with respect to the sun.

Any change in velocity is an acceleration, by definition. Thus, a change in direction at constant speed is an acceleration. Therefore, the Earth, moving at (approximately) constant speed around the Sun, is accelerating continuously.

Inertia means a resistance to change. The ratio of the mass of the earth, a measure of resistance to change, relative to any other earth based Vn is measurably infinite.

Infinity is a very big number. The ratio of the mass of the Earth to, say, a person, is very large, but very very far from infinite (infinitely far, in fact!).

No, I haven't forgfotten what you said. All observers on the train can point to accelerometers on the train and the Ve and find positive recordings on the train and zero recordings on the Ve, have you forgotten?

No, I haven't forgotten. And I also remember our previous discussion on why accelerometers on the Earth read zero, from the point of view of the train. Do you remember that one? Hint: it isn't because the Earth isn't "really" accelerating, from the train's point of view.

You edid not respond to the statement which said that in SR the real velocityof moving frames is set top zero in order that the speed of light always is measured as C. The speed of a physical system is specifcally and threoretically ignored, reality is ignored and this is what you teach students?

It is always possible to choose a frame such that one particular object has zero velocity. It is not necessary to do so, but can be convenient. Frames are used with reference to reality; they don't ignore it.

Then why, in the development of SFR are physical frames used in the constuction of the "Theory".

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wgy are real situations used in building the models?

Because we want the models to correctly model real things, obviously.

So, everything is imaginary? I believe it. SR is imaginary. James R has imaginary statements learned from not just kangaroos, but very stupid kangaroos.Nothing is real.

Nice straw man. Congratulations for knocking that one down.

No, the earth moves with a constant speed but slowly changing direction with respect to the sun, as do all objects attached to the earth, equally. No acceleration force is felt by the earth or lesser frames attached thereto.

Have you ever been skydiving? No acceleration is felt by a skydiver, either, in free fall. But that doesn't mean he isn't accelerating relative to the ground. Think about it.

The mass of the earth is 6x10^27 grams. You pick the mass of any passenger train, calculate the ratio of the respective masses. I say you get "infinite" as an answer.

Suppose I choose a passenger mass of 60 kilograms. Then, I calculate the ratio to be 10^23. That is much smaller than infinity. I agree that it is a large number, but compared to infinity it is insignificantly tiny (as is any finite quantity).

dristam:

"In GR, free fall frames are inertial."

That is a mighty interesting concept -- care to expound some more?

What would you like to know?

Yes I know that cosmologist want to ascribe expansion to space/time itself. But RELATIVITY demonstrates that empty space is definitely NOT a thing, ie. it's NOT an aether -- it's no thing. In my modest mind, I see NO WAY to reconcile your statement. If galaxies are moving away from each other, then the mechanics, the dynamics, are perfectly equivalent to a scenario of just that: objects in motion in the vacuum of space. I see no value in claiming that "space is expanding"... to me, that remark seems like just so much fluff, so much hype. Please expound!

In the GR picture of the expanding universe, all galaxies stay at the same coordinate locations in space, at all times. The expansion is described by the metric of spacetime itself, which causes the physical distance between stationary coordinate locations to increase over time. This kind of motion is not the familiar kind of motion of matter in space. It is not that galaxies are moving apart in space, but rather than locations in space are themselves moving apart, carrying the galaxies with them.

Hope this helps.

An accelerometer measures thrust, ie. G-force, and ONLY that. Look it up in a technical dictionary if you don't believe me! So an accelerometer will read exactly zero for any object in freefall (thru a vacuum). If an accelerometer reads ZERO on EARTH, then it's a calibration mistake... there ARE G-forces present on Earth's surface, as we all can attest. On a steadily coasting train on level ground, an accelerometer would read only the basic up/down G-force that is experienced by all surface inhabitants.

dristam:..In the GR picture of the expanding universe, all galaxies stay at the same coordinate locations in space, at all times. The expansion is described by the metric of spacetime itself, which causes the physical distance between stationary coordinate locations to increase over time. This kind of motion is not the familiar kind of motion of matter in space. It is not that galaxies are moving apart in space, but rather than locations in space are themselves moving apart, carrying the galaxies with them.

Hope this helps.
Not one single bit! But I won't discuss cosmology as it is clearly very arbitrary and reliant on accepted conventions. Space is NOT a thing and I KNOW that with 100% certainty. Cosmologists can accept any arbitrary conventions they choose, but I am unfazed: the telltale DYNAMICS & MECHANICS of the cosmos are undifferentiated from a scenario where motion is simply ascribed to the receeding galaxies WRT one another, in plain-jane space. Point out to me one single measurement that would differ -- I dare you to!

Space is NOT a thing and I KNOW that with 100% certainty.

First of all, a scientist would never say he knew something with 100% certainty.

Secondly, that statement contradicts your assumption of absolute frames. Space is your only hope of showing an absolute frame exists since you cannot base your claim on any objects in space as they are always in motion.

But I won't discuss cosmology as it is clearly very arbitrary and reliant on accepted conventions.

It's not arbitrary.

Anyway, if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

It's not arbitrary.

Anyway, if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.
If you're too chicken to accept my dare, that's fine.

.. First of all, a scientist would never say he knew something with 100% certainty.Do you assert that with 100% certainty?
.. Secondly, that statement contradicts your assumption of absolute frames. Space is your only hope of showing an absolute frame exists since you cannot base your claim on any objects in space as they are always in motion.
PRECISELY! I make no such claim of an absolute frame and I expressly REFUTE any attempts by anyone here to declare one. That's why any claim of an absolute frame, eg. "expanding spacetime" is scorned by me as being arbitrary.

dristam:

Space is NOT a thing and I KNOW that with 100% certainty.

Space is a coordinate system. I think a coordinate system is a thing. Ergo, space is a thing. Maybe.

the telltale DYNAMICS & MECHANICS of the cosmos are undifferentiated from a scenario where motion is simply ascribed to the receeding galaxies WRT one another, in plain-jane space. Point out to me one single measurement that would differ -- I dare you to!

What you've said is fine, so far.

How do you account for the Hubble law, in your "plain-jane" space?

PS "Expanding spacetime" is not a frame of reference.

dristam:.. What you've said is fine, so far.

How do you account for the Hubble law, in your "plain-jane" space?

PS "Expanding spacetime" is not a frame of reference.
Here's an addendum to my stance and argument.

OK, maybe you're tired of my insisting that 'space' is not a thing (it's the absence of any thing). There is however cohesion out there, ie. gravity. At any point in space, as identified by it's coordinates relative to known masses, there is a gravitational potential gradient whose steepness and orientation rely on the precise mapping (in space and time) of every single concentrated mass throughout the entire universe.

These gravitational fields present at every single place... some of them are strong enough to cause significant relativistic distortions. And if we Earthlings ever hope to send any spacecraft or space probe through such a region, then we best know in advance how to map out the exact metric and tensors that prevail thereabouts.

In order to accomplish this, one needs to first sort of "get a handle on" the situation by defining some rather <i>arbitrary</i> compromises leading to a starting point from which to <i>build</i> the required metric. This is necessary because the dynamics out there in the cosmos at large are <u>phenomenally</u> complex! For example, in cosmology speeds greater than c are defined, which is mathematically absurd on its face! The galaxies can recede from one another at speeds in excess of c! because those velocities are arrived at by using a concocted 'universal since-the-Big-Bang' time, and concocted 'universal comoving observer' distances. These are patent compromises, part of an arbitrary framework. Check out some of Ned Wright's pages for confirmation.

So most of cosmology is practicality, not necessarily a purist truth. It is my humble belief that the recession of the galaxies is an indisputable Truth... they are speeding away from one another alright, but not solely in accordance with any particular absolute frame, however 'dynamic' that absolute frame is contrived to be. There may be validity to the contrived framework when applied, but the simple purist view is <u>equally</u> (and more fundamentally) also true: the galaxies are speeding apart from one another with respect to no particular master framework.

dristam:.. How do you account for the Hubble law, in your "plain-jane" space?

Well it's a characteristic of any explosion, duh hello! any one piece of debris has a relative velocity WRT to any other, commensurate with its distance away! I'm sure the right answer is appropriately more complex. But it's probably irrelevant to my stance, posted hereabove, how things GOT the way they are... I merely opine that the dynamics can be just as accurately described and attributed without characterizing the medium in any way. I think that cosmology is based a lot on expedience, practicality, compromise.

dristam:

Fundamentally, I agree with you. Observations are observations. Distant galaxies are moving away from us. That is observed. No argument. And I don't really need to look at Ned Wright's pages to agree with you in general.

But the challenge for physicists is to explain observations, and make predictions about the future behaviour of physical systems based on their current states.

General relativistic cosmology explains why all distant galaxies move away from us, and why that movement follows the Hubble law. I take your point that superimposed on the Hubble expansion are individual local motions of galaxies, but these are very small in comparison, especially at large distances.

I disagree with you that cosmological assumptions are arbitrary. They must fit the observations, and therefore they cannot be totally arbitrary.

dristam:.. I take your point that superimposed on the Hubble expansion are individual local motions of galaxies, but these are very small in comparison, especially at large distances. ..
What I said about the characteristics of any explosion generally leading to a Hubble reality -- you reject that? are you claiming that my statement is TRUE yet it accounts for only a fraction of the observed velocities?? Tsk tsk.. we're at an impasse then perhaps.

dristam: Space is a coordinate system. I think a coordinate system is a thing. Ergo, space is a thing. Maybe.
But space is not any universal coordinate system. Inhabitants of Milky Way have their 'space', while inhabitants of distant Foo-XG3-P12.60 galaxy have their 'space'. It's a contrivance of each particular observer, and only that. There's no one preferred coordinate system so there's no one "space". There are as many "space"'s as there are arbirarily-defined vantages, ie. an infinite number. No... space is not a real feature of our Natural world -- it's a contrivance.

But look at us now, down to mere saber rattling!

2inquisitive:



Where is SR inaccurate?



The Relativistic one.



What are the three models?



You could easily find out if you read an introductory text on general relativity. Why not make an effort?



Not nothingness. Spacetime.



Shouldn't matter to what? Be specific. What shouldn't it affect?



A couple of problems here. First, relativistic mass increase does not cause increased gravity, as you assume. Second, the motion of galaxies is inertial. They are acted on by gravity, and little else. In GR, free fall frames are inertial.



More than zero.



What loop hole?
James R, this thread started on the equivalence of inertial frames issue. I have made an extensive showing that the earth frame of reference is effectivley a preferred frame by the sheer over-whelming inertia of Ve, with respect to any Vn attached to the surface of Ve, that the motion of the earth is measurably indistinguishable from straight-line motion and that all Vn are observed to accelerate to a velocity Vn > Ve = 0 in order that relative motion be observed. The acceleratioon of the Vn is a prerequisite to relative motion. The conclusion is James R thatg the concept of equivalenmt inertial frame is a myth and not a physical reality.

Do you uinderstand this?
Why is uit that the only way in which a relative velocity can be observed betweebn frames Ve and Vn is when Vn accelerates with respecdt to Ve and it is never the other way around? Answer the inertia of the Ve frame is too massive to accelerate.

geistkiesel:

Your seem to have responded to my post twice. I'm not sure which response you want me to look at, so I'll just consider the first one.



Your logic doesn't follow.

For an explanation of reference frames, please see my thread titled "What is a reference frame?"



To take one obvious example, if you are looking at the motions of planets in orbit around the Sun, the Earth's motion cannot be considered to be a straight line, and its "turning rate" becomes quite significant.[/;quote]

James R please be more attenmtive to the posgts people wruiite. I saifd the motion of the planet is measurably indistinguishable from straight line motion. Can you dispuite this?

Wher does the turning rate of < 10^-8 degrees per second become significant in a physical measurement?





[quote=James ER]
It is always possible to choose a frame such that one particular object has zero velocity. It is not necessary to do so, but can be convenient. Frames are used with reference to reality; they don't ignore it.
Sure you can also choose a kangaroo to be your reference frame if you want. Take your choice. Ignore the phsics.



[/quogte=James R]
Have you ever been skydiving? No acceleration is felt by a skydiver, either, in free fall. But that doesn't mean he isn't accelerating relative to the ground. Think about it
The skydiver feels a rush of loss of weight when there isn't the steady mass he is sitting on there anymore. Once he has reached terminal velocity, very soon actually, he is not accelerating any more. Think about it.



Suppose I choose a passenger mass of 60 kilograms. Then, I calculate the ratio to be 10^23. That is much smaller than infinity. I agree that it is a large number, but compared to infinity it is insignificantly tiny (as is any finite quantity).

Will you be able to measure the diffeerence in inertia of your 60 kg and the earth? The 60 kg passenger's inertia relative to the earth is less than a fly's inertia with respect to a diesel train passenger train that is let us say is 10 x 10 x 20 meters of solid steel, which is 2x 10^9 cm^3. With steel what 50 grams/ cm^3?

You do the math and then maybe you will get a concept of physical infinity. The point where one gets paractical, is physical infinity.It is like roundingv off, have yo heard of this? I really can't believe you think like that. What a loss.

is effectivley a preferred frame by the sheer over-whelming inertia of Ve, with respect to any Vn attached to the surface of VeSo I have to ask, who cares?

If you are on a train you could care less about your 'absolute velocity' relative to the Earth. It's your velocity relative to everything else on the train that matters. You are simply limiting yourself by being forced to always use Earth as V0.

geistkiesel:

The Earth frame is only "preferred" in certain situations. If I throw a ball on a moving train and I want to calculate where in the train it will land, am I better off using the Earth frame, or the train frame? In this example, constant velocity motion of the train with respect to the Earth is irrelevant to what I want to know. So, here, I would say the train frame is the "preferred" frame.

Which frame is "preferred" in a particular situation has more to do with calculational simplicity than inertia of particular objects in the frame.

* that the motion of the earth is measurably indistinguishable from straight-line motion and that

That is incorrect, as I have previously explained.

* all Vn are observed to accelerate to a velocity Vn > Ve = 0 in order that relative motion be observed.

Only in the Earth frame.

* The acceleratioon of the Vn is a prerequisite to relative motion.

No. You can either accelerate Vn or Ve to get relative motion. Simple logic.

* The conclusion is James R thatg the concept of equivalenmt inertial frame is a myth and not a physical reality.

There's a whole thread on the concept of reference frames. Maybe you ought to read it.

geistkiesel:

To take one obvious example, if you are looking at the motions of planets in orbit around the Sun, the Earth's motion cannot be considered to be a straight line, and its "turning rate" becomes quite significant.



Any change in velocity is an acceleration, by definition. Thus, a change in direction at constant speed is an acceleration. Therefore, the Earth, moving at (approximately) constant speed around the Sun, is accelerating continuously.

Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..

Also, you are stating in the second paragraph that the concept of inertial frame is a myth and a physical condition impossible to obtain on our fair planet that is. All Vn on the Ve are slaved to the Ve the planet. Where the planet goes so goes everythbing else.

Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..

To take another familiar example, consider weather patterns on Earth. Winds rotate around high and low pressure regions in the air. What causes the rotation? Answer: the rotation of the Earth. If we don't take the Earth's rotation into account, we can't account for the rotation of hurricanes, or cyclones, or even normal high and low pressure systems.

Satisfied?

I have said many times: the arrogance always is very aggressive...
Many, many years ago Fuqueau (I'm not sure for my spelling) had constructed his famous pendulum (still are in Vatican and Issakii in Russian Sent-Petersburg) just to say to people like geistiesel: "Come and see one example where the Earth turning plays the dominant role"...

Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..He just told you... calculating the motion of the planets.

He just told you... calculating the motion of the planets.

You are calculating I am measuring. I have said a dozen times that the straight line motion s measurably indistinguishable from straight line motion. I know th eplanet moves, it moves with all the motion of a particle moving in astraight line. But then your job is to piss people off, you being a snot nosed punk Special Relativity theorist.

One more of these and I am not answering any more of your posts, except to reamark I am not answering them because of your dishonesty and game palying.

So I have to ask, who cares?

If you are on a train you could care less about your 'absolute velocity' relative to the Earth. It's your velocity relative to everything else on the train that matters. You are simply limiting yourself by being forced to always use Earth as V0.
This is prime bull-shit. The observer is no more than a chair that is loose on the frame. But the obvserver must be slaved to the frame, whether she knows she is moving or not. Your head game SR is for the nutcrackers.

There is no rational reason why the observers state of mind defines the world around her. In her own mind she and other SR theorists consider themselves legends in their own minds but that is the extent of it,

You seem to be discarding my physically dynamic frames slike you would dismiss living next door to a Hispanic family, or lesbians. You sound like an angry racist. What happend did your mammy let you get run over by a parked car that was moving at 100 mph?

I have said many times: the arrogance always is very aggressive...
Many, many years ago Fuqueau (I'm not sure for my spelling) had constructed his famous pendulum (still are in Vatican and Issakii in Russian Sent-Petersburg) just to say to people like geistiesel: "Come and see one example where the Earth turning plays the dominant role"...

And what the hell s wrong with aggression? What would you rather coalsesce to, aggression or timidity?

It seems you afre socialized to the insanity that humility is better than smirking? Is that so?

If you have been following the threads with other than casual indifference, you would see that I have always said the earth is moving and turning as it is: Dig it < 10^-8 degrees per seconds.

What I have been saying is that the nmotion of the earth is measurably indistinguishable to straight-line motion. Therefore all the measurable characteristics of inertial frames are met in the measurement of the Ve motion. Calculating and measuring are two different matters.

Your pendulum is interesting but please explain to me how that pendulumm indiocates that measuring the relatve velocity of Camarros and Mustangs can be effected by the earth motion as shown by your pendulum, got it?

To take another familiar example, consider weather patterns on Earth. Winds rotate around high and low pressure regions in the air. What causes the rotation? Answer: the rotation of the Earth. If we don't take the Earth's rotation into account, we can't account for the rotation of hurricanes, or cyclones, or even normal high and low pressure systems.

Satisfied?
As a mentor in this forum is the forum policy one to change the topic of the thread and to discourse bullshit whit straw men standing in as substitutes for intelligence?

Not satisfied, then?

1. You have asked:
Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..
I did show you one...
2. You are definitely in wrong Forum, because here are some people who known that Earth is rotating with rate 306degrees in 24 hrs, or
360/24*3600 = 1/240 >4*10^-3 degree/second. Not <10*^-8 degree/second.
Those people do not buy errors in 10^5 times...
3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation...

1. You have asked:
Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..
I did show you one...
2. You are definitely in wrong Forum, because here are some people who known that Earth is rotating with rate 306degrees in 24 hrs, or
360/24*3600 = 1/240 >4*10^-3 degree/second. Not <10*^-8 degree/second.
Those people do not buy errors in 10^5 times...
3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation...


I said the earth is turning. I also said that the earth's motion is measurably indistnguishable from straight-line motion. This is parallel to the statement that the earth is measurably flat.

I believe that the earth orbits the sun, a belief fromfrom inference, not direct measurement.

The motions of the earth include rotation, sun orbit and solar system orbit moving with the sun (dragged by the sun). The last orbit swamps the sun and rotational turning. The last orbit the sun travels 208km/sec x 31465687 = 6.65 x 10^9 km. the sun orbit and sun trajectory make an angle of 1.5 degrees which results in the 10^-8 degrees/sec rotational rate. Anyway, just your 10^-3 degrees/second isn't all that fast, have you ever measured it to the extent that an experimetn was affected also? Or that the implicit assumption that the earth is moving in a straight line was found to interfer?

You are in the wrong forum. Here we actually read each other's posts before commenting.

1. In one case you are right - Here we actually read each other's posts before commenting. And we comment not what author means, but what he actually says (writes and posts). You have said “I have always said the earth is moving and turning as it is: Dig it < 10^-8 degrees per seconds”. Now you are saying “The motions of the earth include rotation, sun orbit and solar system orbit moving with the sun (dragged by the sun).” So, my comment was absolutely correct.
But even after that you did not understand that in this Forum are people that do not tolerates errors even in 274 times: Earth does full rotation, 360 degrees, around Sun for 1 full year or 365 day-nights, ergo does rotation with angular velocity 360/24*3600*365 second, or 1.14*10^-5. It is 1/365 of Earth rotation around of its own axis.
So, your estimation 10*^-8 degree/second is less than even that actual velocity in 274 times.
2. You have asked:
Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..
I did show you one - Fuqueau pendulum...
Now you are asking: “Anyway, just your 10^-3 degrees/second isn't all that fast, have you ever measured it to the extent that an experimetn was affected also?”
I actually have shown you one, where 100% of effect is due to influence of the Earth rotation around its own axis. ...
You know, in this Forum we actually read each other's posts…

1. In one case you are right - Here we actually read each other's posts before commenting. And we comment not what author means, but what he actually says (writes and posts). You have said “I have always said the earth is moving and turning as it is: Dig it < 10^-8 degrees per seconds”. Now you are saying “The motions of the earth include rotation, sun orbit and solar system orbit moving with the sun (dragged by the sun).” So, my comment was absolutely correct.
But even after that you did not understand that in this Forum are people that do not tolerates errors even in 274 times: Earth does full rotation, 360 degrees, around Sun for 1 full year or 365 day-nights, ergo does rotation with angular velocity 360/24*3600*365 second, or 1.14*10^-5. It is 1/365 of Earth rotation around of its own axis.
So, your estimation 10*^-8 degree/second is less than even that actual velocity in 274 times.
2. You have asked:
Show just one example where the Ve turning motion is quite significant..
I did show you one - Fuqueau pendulum...
Now you are asking: “Anyway, just your 10^-3 degrees/second isn't all that fast, have you ever measured it to the extent that an experimetn was affected also?”
I actually have shown you one, where 100% of effect is due to influence of the Earth rotation around its own axis. ...
You know, in this Forum we actually read each other's posts…

OK we read each other's posts. besides our differences with "total rotation rate" I have repeatedly said, that whatever the rate of turning is, never assuming 0, the measurable straight-line motion cannot be distinguish from the earth trajectory. Pendula, watching the heavens, planetary and other stellar motion all tell us of the complex turning motion of the planet.

Here is the full version of your quote in red, with the addendum in red added for necessary clarification. The original was admittedly perhaps, ambiguous:
Quote geistkiesel:

"3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have [not been] experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation... "

An example, I am not changing the subject, merely contrasting similar problems. so again:
a. measure the variation of "flat" on the surface of the planet.
b. Distinguish variation of straight-line trajectory motion of the earth.

For example, have a direction turning-rate meter operating in real time, and once you have constructed this device show that the rate of turning, which would be "showing variation of straight-line motion", is signifcant in any historically verifiable experiment, or any current (near future) experiment. The pendulum while showing what it shows, does not show any "turning-rate" perturbation in any significance in any earth-frame experiments that merely tacitly assume straight-line motion. During some measured dt error in measuring a parameter, show an earth-frame-turning perturbation.
I suppose I am saying: "can you feel it?"

I predict that it is easier to find measured variations in "flat" than variations in "straight-line motion". My grandmother when shown a photograph of the earth purportedly taken from the moon, would remark something like,"That's a pretty picture. I know what hills and valleys and mountains are, and I know what flat means. Flat is not the periodic flat pieces of ground scattered around. My grocery store is one measured km over fairly uniform altitudes measured from my house. I say a tractor-grader can grade a laser-flat strip between my house and the store. Is this pretty picture supposed to deny the possibility of the graded flat strip of land?

"3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have [not been] experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation... "

Wrong again: should be "are experiensing" or "have been experiensing".

"3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have [not been] experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation... "

Wrong again: should be "are experiensing" or "have been experiensing".

OK Yuriy, please respond to this: When I say the Camarros and Mustangs have not been experiencing "quite significant" additional forces, I have said, I thought, that any measuable motion of the earth frame motion is indistinguishable from straight-line motion, taken in the sense that experimental results implicitly assuming Ve, of the earth frame, is effectively zero do not show earth motion induced perturbations.

In this same sense I have said, in other threads, that the mass of the earth frame, some 6x10^27 grams, as an inertial frame, where inertial is taken to mean resistance to change is infinitely greater than any earth based inertia assigned to any, or all inertial frames together, Vn for all n, such as passenger trains, ocean liners etc, even though we both know that the mass of the all or the lightest Vn, is greater than zero. The proportional difference is effectively infinite.

The various frames, Ve and Vn, n=1, 2 . . infinity, have some invariant properties when relative motion is observed between Ve and all Vn. One such invaiant property I speak of is that there is never any relative motion measured between Ve and Vn, unless Vn first undergoes acceleration such that Vn - Ve > 0. and, we may add, no Ve > 0 is ever observed when measuing the relative velocity of Vn - Ve. Combining the rule, as a prerequisite to observed relative velocity of Ve and All Vn is Vn > 0 due to acceleration by an outside force and Ve are specifically not accelerated and Ve = 0 always.

Also, all Vn inherit, or adopt, all the motions of Ve, when Vn = Ve = 0. Using the common motions (cms) of both, we may express the relaltive velocity as Vn + cms -(Ve + cms) = Vn - Ve > 0. The commn speed cancel by subtraction.

The mass inertia of Ve guarantees that Ve will never accelerate wrt Vn and will only "accelerate" if colliding with a stellar object of comparable mass and momentum.

Therefore, no Vn > 0, as defined above after acceleration, can possibly be at rest wrt Ve as the frames are not equivalent as Ve = 0 = constant always wirt Vn > 0, ever.

If this contradictory physical reality assuring the inequivalence of frames upsets one's concept of 'equivalent frames' as defined by AE asserting that, 'all frames will measure the same "relative velocity of frame and photon" as Vc = C', then go tell a joke to yourself and have a good laugh.

The relative velocity wrt Ve = 0 is C, but the Vc - Vn = C - Vn < C. Now this earth shaking expression says simply: That C is of a greater velocity than Vn by the amount C - Vn. I cannot understand why this simple statement generates such emotional response from anyone, SR theorist or otherwise.

"3. Some people in our Forum know that when "Camarros and Mustangs" are driving between Florida and New York they have [not been] experiencing action of some "quite significant" additional force - the Koriolius force - because of Earth rotation... "

Wrong again: should be "are experiensing" or "have been experiensing".

Just once Yuriy, why don't you make a statement other than echoing your SR mantras? Like try ouit a new idea in your analysis, like using real og=hysical arguments insead of your incompetent robotic repetition of mathematical inanity?

Yuriy is quoted as :
"Wrong again: should be "are experiensing" or "have been experiensing ".[/QUOTE]"

You have mentioned that there are more than one of you reviewuing the 'joke of the day'. Are you telling me that all you on your review committee can come up with as an expression of physical law and logic in the process of our discussion is your naive and trivial statement directly above?

If this is an expression of the level of your singular and collective competence and is all you have, I wil not be responding any further to any ofyour posts.

I have said, I thought, that any measuable motion of the earth frame motion is indistinguishable from straight-line motion, taken in the sense that experimental results implicitly assuming Ve, of the earth frame, is effectively zero do not show earth motion induced perturbations.And we have given you examples of why you are wrong. Don't keep repeating YOUR dumbass mantras, especially when they are wrong.

And we have given you examples of why you are wrong. Don't keep repeating YOUR dumbass mantras, especially when they are wrong.
Where does your pendulum. or any other "example" show why I am wrong? Where has pendulm data been integrated into an experiment to indicate variation from the measured values of an experiment?

You're kidding me, right? You don't think people would have noticed 24 hour deviations in their experiments?

Funny, because THEY HAVE.

You're kidding me, right? You don't think people would have noticed 24 hour deviations in their experiments?

Funny, because THEY HAVE.
Explain what you are talking about.

You keep saying that motion on Earth is straight and that any change in velocity is undetectable. The point is that that is just plain wrong. The pendelum is a nice easily understood example, but there are MANY others. Your assertion that the earth is stationary is just plain wrong.

You keep saying that motion on Earth is straight and that any change in velocity is undetectable. The point is that that is just plain wrong. The pendelum is a nice easily understood example, but there are MANY others. Your assertion that the earth is stationary is just plain wrong.

Maybe English isn't your first language and you have difficulty with understanmding mildly complex statements. I have said that I realize the motion of the earth is complex in basic detail. However, the mass advantage of the earth, as an inertial frame of reference to any other object, certainly those confined to the volume element limited by the phyisical implication of motion of these Vn bjects, less than 11.2 km/sec for all Vn and where the planet earth is Ve, is such that the inertia of the Ve relative to any Vn, or all Vn collectively, is physically infinite, i.e. defined by the inability to measure variations in the assumption of infinite relative mass inertia vis a vis earth and lesser inertial frames.

Take it like this: Muhammed Ali, premier boxing champion of all time, if placed in a boxing ring with you, when Ali was at his physical peak, would be infinitlely more likely to kick your butt all over the ring, at will, than for you to do anything measurably effective to stop or limit the massacre, in way, except to drop to the floor and beg for mercy. Understand now?

The footnote here is that the observation of relative motion of Ve wrt to Vn is always preceded by an accelertation of the Vn objects such that Vn - Ve = Vne, further |Vne| > 0, and with this the observed absence of acceleration of Ve.

However, the mass advantage of the earth, as an inertial frame of reference to any other objectThe sun is much, much, much more massive. It matters not one iota how much inertia the Earth has.

The ONLY correct thing you are ALMOST saying is that the effects due to a moving Earth can often be ignored. You need to realize however that there are many problem were this just will not work.

If you are moving through a train/boat/spaceship, I could care less if the Earth is anywhere nearby. It just doesn't matter.

geistkiesel:

What's the point in rehashing arguments which have previously been dealt with? I already explained to you that the inertia of some object in a particular reference frame has no effect on the properties of the frame. All inertial frames are equivalent, regardless of which objects happen to be stationary in them. Therefore, the Earth frame is no better than the frame of a moving car. One frame has the Earth at rest, the other has the car at rest. All the relevant physics can be done from one or other frame - it makes no difference.

Repeating yourself won't make you any more correct.

geistkiesel:

What's the point in rehashing arguments which have previously been dealt with? I already explained to you that the inertia of some object in a particular reference frame has no effect on the properties of the frame. All inertial frames are equivalent, regardless of which objects happen to be stationary in them. Therefore, the Earth frame is no better than the frame of a moving car. One frame has the Earth at rest, the other has the car at rest. All the relevant physics can be done from one or other frame - it makes no difference.

Repeating yourself won't make you any more correct.
Inertia means resistence to change. The inertia of the planet is not equivalent to the inertia of any earth borne frame or object that you can define. The inertia of Ve iis infinitley invaiant in motion with respect to all Vn seen in relative motion with the Ve.

The planet earth is not in a frame, the earth is a frame.

All objects on the planet inherit the motion of the earth and it is the non earth objects, the Vn, that accelerate to velocities absolutely greater than the Ve = 0 velocty. Do you understand this?

The Vn frames all accelerate with respect to the Ve = 0 frame as a condition to observing relative motion of Ve and Vn. The Vn are all moving with respect to a Ve = 0 and such Vn are exhibiting asbolute velocity and this observation is directly in your face James R. .

Ve is never obcserved to accelerate.

The sun is much, much, much more massive. It matters not one iota how much inertia the Earth has.

The ONLY correct thing you are ALMOST saying is that the effects due to a moving Earth can often be ignored. You need to realize however that there are many problem were this just will not work.

If you are moving through a train/boat/spaceship, I could care less if the Earth is anywhere nearby. It just doesn't matter.
Maybe it doesn'ymatter to you but your velocity can always be referenced to the Ve embankment wherever you are.

I've temporarily forgotten which pist I did this but I posted some stellar data (to day) whch clearly showed the effective straightline motion of the planet earth even more so than i had peviously thought or calculated. Did you know it requires 4500 days for the rotational drection vector of a point on the surface of Ve to turn 350 degrees?

Wherer is there a problem where using Ve as a frame of reference wont work?

The planet earth is not in a frame, the earth is a frame.

Please check the definition of the term "reference frame". There is a thread which explains the concept in this forum, entitled "What is a reference frame?"

Please check the definition of the term "reference frame". There is a thread which explains the concept in this forum, entitled "What is a reference frame?"
You mean to say what is your definition of reference frame don't you. This reference frame that that measuremes acclerations from readouts on staring passenger trains leaving he station where the accleration of the station is also occuring , but where the force is different as the mass of the station and people and cars a,d puppy diogs left behind do not have any acclerometer reading because the force is felt equally by all the mass of theobject swimultaneously, as oif the station and left behind peeople were perfectly rigid frames.

And James R, you recently published some SR heresy. If the reaction force of an accelerating train (which is not seen on the accelerometer readings on the railway station, but is seen on the train accelerometers) , is felt through all the railway station mass at the same time, this would clearly violate the SR restricition on the llimit to the speed of light, where the force is felt by all the mass simultaneously, att the same time. DO you recall this concept being written by yourself? The infinite different force of which you spoeak dioesn't answer the question either.

Please retract this description of a force applied infinitely fast James R, before you embarrass yourself in fornt of your friends. Also methinks, "nonlocal" arttributes of your superluminal force would not effectively hide your panicked response of silliness.

geistkiesel:

If the reaction force of an accelerating train (which is not seen on the accelerometer readings on the railway station, but is seen on the train accelerometers) , is felt through all the railway station mass at the same time, this would clearly violate the SR restricition on the llimit to the speed of light, where the force is felt by all the mass simultaneously, att the same time.

No information is transmitted by means of inertial forces. They do not violate any aspect of the theory of relativity. You are mistaken.

geistkiesel:



No information is transmitted by means of inertial forces. They do not violate any aspect of the theory of relativity. You are mistaken.
If no information is transmitted by inertial forces then there is no force. Your use of the word "force" is grossly misplaced.

You are quite correct. An inertial force is not really a force... but it IS what you are talking about.... and you could find out what everyone is talking about by actually doing some reading.

I disagree with Persol slightly. An inertial force is as real as any other force in a non-inertial reference frame. However, move to an inertial frame and all inertial forces disappear.

An inertial force appears solely because the reference frame is non-inertial.

The centrifugal force tears on small pieces the huge steel rotors ... and you call it not a real force?

The centrifugal force tears on small pieces the huge steel rotors ... and you call it not a real force?

I would like to back up a few paces and get a prespective on the state of he thread that is titled the equvialence of inertial frames. My assertion that the Ve, planet earth frame was "preferred" may be a nisnomer as is the claim about the effective straight line motion of the planet. I understand everyonje's disagreement, and your reasons you presented what what you did. At the resent time can we drag that dead horse out of the ring and focus on something more useful for all?

Basically, my thinking when starting this thread was to explore the equivalence of inertial frames that generates the SR dynamic of one observer assuming a state of motion different than his "actual" motion as observed from Ve,the embankment. I am not asking for a gun fight at the OK corral on inertial frames in general, only the question of justifying the observer 's consideration as stated above. If this is not too restricting I would like to limit the thread, as much as is reasonable, to the question of the significance of the measure of the relative velocity of light being the same in all inertial frames and how this is used in the "justification process". the "" are my words, but I trust you can decipher my intentions here, which I ask you to join..

I see myself as leading in the insult exchange, though for sure that issue may never be settled, and may be doubted or even denied by some, or all, but at this stage in the proceedings it is my observation that our personal differences have been adequately presented and unless such exchanges are deemed necessary for your purposes, or even if you simply want to get even, or to win, or don't give a shit about it one way or the other, then if my simple surrender would have any mitigating effect, please assume the most advantageous use of me having fallen on my sword.

Why does the motion of the constant measured speed of light in all reference rise to the level of special recognition as used in special relativity in the measurement of the relative velocity between photon and frame.? Or in other words is measuring the speed of light as a constant C in all frames equivalent to the measure of the realtive speed of light between frame and photon?

geistkiesel:



No information is transmitted by means of inertial forces. They do not violate any aspect of the theory of relativity. You are mistaken.
Read here for my response.

You are quite correct. An inertial force is not really a force... but it IS what you are talking about.... and you could find out what everyone is talking about by actually doing some reading.
Read here for my response.

The centrifugal force tears on small pieces the huge steel rotors ... and you call it not a real force?The centrifugal force is just inertia. The centrupetal force is creating the damage. Without it you'd just have straight line motion.

Of course this once again depends on your frame of reference... so I think we both agree.

Persol,
I can not think on the level where the notion “force” (straightly or with an adjective “inertial”) is equalized with notion “inertia” (the ability of the material bodies to keep their velocity unchanged as far no one other body is forcing it to change this velocity – as it was defined by Galileo, who invented this term)

You are quite correct. An inertial force is not really a force... but it IS what you are talking about.... and you could find out what everyone is talking about by actually doing some reading.
What do you mean an inertial force isn't a force but it is whaT I am talking about. I realize we have touched his issue before, but I am going back through my posts o cleaan up any messes I made.' I am only stating hee hat when he train accelerates fronm the station the accelerometers produce reading, while the accelerometers on the station do not.

For the rest pf he world, this is how I use the term "no force" which means, "no reading on the accelerometer in the station frame", or no variation in a position at rest, or no deviation from straight line motion. Now if an inertial frame comes into the neighborhood of a photon beam in free space, acclerating or not, unless that frame coming into the photon neighbor actually applies a force to the photon, there is no mere point of view that the approaching frame can adopt that can substitute for an applicaion of force on the photon.

Persol,
I can not think on the level where the notion “force” (straightly or with an adjective “inertial”) is equalized with notion “inertia” (the ability of the material bodies to keep their velocity unchanged as far no one other body is forcing it to change this velocity – as it was defined by Galileo, who invented this term)I'm not exactly sure what you mean here... but this is more interesting than the thread so I'll go off on a tangent.I'm also interested on where exactly one or both of us is wrong.

Do you agree that centrifugal force is just the result of inertia... and is therefore a pseudo-force used to make the problem easier (from the non-inertial view)?

Dear Persol,
1. By the definition, the centripetal force is the resulting force that is a sum (according to the rules of addition of vectors) of all real forces instantly acting on the material point, MP, in the direction opposite to the instant radius of curvature of the trajectory of this MP.
2. From there you can conclude that:
 The centripetal force always is absolutely real force;
 The centripetal force has nothing to do with inertia of MP, except as the proportionality to MP’s mass;
 The centripetal force always a