Absolute and Galolaian coordinate systems.
Stamenin
Einstein are based on the definition of the first law of the mechanics.
About the absolute system of coordinates Newton said that exits but is
very dificult to be determined. Einstein said that it doesn't exist. He
presents as an alternative solution the Galileian system of
coordinates, which isn't more clear how we could tetermine it. The
truth is that the absolute system of coordinates is impossible to be
determined but the inertia of the material bodies respects the
definition of this system.Einstein with the definition of the Galileian
system of coordinates says nothing more than the definition of the
absolute system of coordinates. I'll cite him from his book Relativity
page 12. "A body removed sufficiently far from others bodies continues
in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line.
This law not only says something about the motion of the bodies, but it
olso indicates the reference bodies or systems of coordinates,
permissible in mechanics, which can be used in mechanical description.
A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the
law of inertia holds relative to it is called a "Galileian system of
coordinates". The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be
regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of coordinates"
So Einstein realizes that the first law of the mechanics, says in a
clear way that the laws of the mechanics are valid only in a large
portion of the cosmos where do not exist forces of gravitation. In
other words, they are not valid for a coordinate system rigidly
attached to the earth surface or a system with his origin in the center
of the earth and his axes oriented toward the fixded.stars. In such a
way he makes a separation between the first law of the mechanics and
the principle of the relativity and an indirect assumption that the
laws of the mechanics do not appertain to the category of natural laws.
Obviously this is an upside down situation in physics.
On the other side Newton and Eistein have not given an explanation,
why the principle of the relativity is valid for an coordinate system
rigidly atached to the earth surface. This solution can be given by
using the role that play the inertial and the gravitational forces on
the motion of the material bodies. But for the moment I'd like to stop
and to explain that in a future topic.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155870359.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The absolute and the Galilaian systems defined by Newton and by
> Einstein are based on the definition of the first law of the mechanics.
Before you comment on and (sort of) lecture about these matters, don't
you think it would be a good idea to come to terms with coordinate
systems and how they are used first?
Yesterday and the day before on the thread "TIME DILATION"
I showed you how to solve:
- your problem with "repeatedly applying the dilation equations"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8a2961e82ace77b4
and
- your problem with "not being allowed to combine equations (1) and (3)"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/87be159fd158631f
I gave you a few exercises as well. Were they perhaps too hard?
Did you try?
Dirk Vdm
Stamenin
With the orthografy and with the corect English speaking I recognise
that am wrong. But with the Newton mechanics I am preaty goot. You have
nothing to say about the two coordinate systems out of the orthografy?
About the direct and inverse relations of the Lorentz transformation I
think you have to see what is there to be clarified.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155936143.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155870359.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > The absolute and the Galilaian systems defined by Newton and by
>> > Einstein are based on the definition of the first law of the mechanics.
>>
>> Before you comment on and (sort of) lecture about these matters, don't
>> you think it would be a good idea to come to terms with coordinate
>> systems and how they are used first?
>>
>> Yesterday and the day before on the thread "TIME DILATION"
>> I showed you how to solve:
>> - your problem with "repeatedly applying the dilation equations"
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8a2961e82ace77b4
>> and
>> - your problem with "not being allowed to combine equations (1) and (3)"
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/87be159fd158631f
>>
>> I gave you a few exercises as well. Were they perhaps too hard?
>> Did you try?
>
> With the orthografy and with the corect English speaking I recognise
> that am wrong.
What orthography?
Wrong about what?
> But with the Newton mechanics I am preaty goot.
Do note that this is sci.physics.relativity.
> You have
> nothing to say about the two coordinate systems out of the orthografy?
I don't understand what you mean with "out of the orthografy".
> About the direct and inverse relations of the Lorentz transformation I
> think you have to see what is there to be clarified.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
As far as I can see, you did not answer my questions.
Can you try that again?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:jjqFg.28813$bc4.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[anip]
xi, x'?
Androcles