Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A new kinematic
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Rommel Nana Dutchou
May 6, 2012, 12:21:18 PM5/6/12
to
[[Mod. note --
A pdf of the article the author cites can found at
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf
Another relevant article on this topic by the same author is
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Phys_Content_Gen_Cov.pdf
-- jt]]
We know that the notion of observational frame of reference has no
meaning in general relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
John D. Norton (1993). General covariance and the foundations of
general relativity: eight decades of dispute, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56,
pp. 794.
"...the question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains
unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature of the
theory's fondations. Is this the theory that extends the relativity of
motion from inertial motion to accelerated motion, as Einstein
contended ? Or is it just a theory that treats gravitation
geometrically in the spacetime setting ?"
John D. Norton (1993). General covariance and the foundations of
general relativity: eight decades of dispute, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56,
pp. 835-7.
"Of special importance for our purposes is that each frame of
reference has a definite state of motion at each event of spacetime"
My document present the theory that extends the relativity of motion
from inertial motion to accelerated motion and I hope you will try to
learn more about its contents. It is built around the notion of
observational frame of reference.
For now I have some dificulties in English and I'd rather write in
French. The document : https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9KccZkRcdGlN3p2M3BYR09pajg
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
A pdf of the article the author cites can found at
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf
Another relevant article on this topic by the same author is
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Phys_Content_Gen_Cov.pdf
-- jt]]
We know that the notion of observational frame of reference has no
meaning in general relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
John D. Norton (1993). General covariance and the foundations of
general relativity: eight decades of dispute, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56,
pp. 794.
"...the question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains
unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature of the
theory's fondations. Is this the theory that extends the relativity of
motion from inertial motion to accelerated motion, as Einstein
contended ? Or is it just a theory that treats gravitation
geometrically in the spacetime setting ?"
John D. Norton (1993). General covariance and the foundations of
general relativity: eight decades of dispute, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56,
pp. 835-7.
"Of special importance for our purposes is that each frame of
reference has a definite state of motion at each event of spacetime"
My document present the theory that extends the relativity of motion
from inertial motion to accelerated motion and I hope you will try to
learn more about its contents. It is built around the notion of
observational frame of reference.
For now I have some dificulties in English and I'd rather write in
French. The document : https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9KccZkRcdGlN3p2M3BYR09pajg
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
Rommel Nana Dutchou
May 6, 2012, 11:57:06 PM5/6/12
to
Hello,
There are those who argue that a frame of reference is a coordinate
system : they say that an observational frame of reference is a
coordinate system.
They are those who think that a frame of reference is not a coordinate
system. Wikipedia : "an observer in an observational frame of
reference can choose to employ any coordinate system (Cartesian,
polar, curvilinear, generalized, =85) to describe observations made from
that frame of reference. A change in the choice of this coordinate
system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not
entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference".
The notion of observational frame of reference has no meaning in
general relativity.
If we know the path of an experimenter P in a cartesian coordinate
system, we know its frame of reference only if we know the
trajectories (in this coordinate system) of entities which are
continuously stationary for P :
* In classical physics, all these trajectories are described by two
functions velocity vectors : one translational and one rotational.
* In a Minkowski space, in some situations where P moves with constant
velocity, it is argued that a particle which is continuously immobile
for P moves with the same constant speed. But we can not say anything
when the speed of P is not constant.
The mathematics of my document allow to clearly distinguish the
concepts of "frame of reference" and "coordinate systems".
In the document I have isolated the three assumptions that are
necessary and sufficient to construct the classical kinematics. They
define the concepts of velocity vectors and their composition law.
They postulate relationships between the choices that can carry out
different experimenters.
These assumptions do not allow a covariant formulation of theory of
electromagnetism, unlike the kinematics relativistic which is deducted
from "postulat 1". This "postulat 1" summarizes interpretation of the
special formulas of Lorentz made by Einstein and these Lorentz
formulas have been introduced to make the wave equation invariant
under a linear transformation of coordinates.
The solution of equation (11) must lead to new physics. This equation
is the relativistic version of the purely classical that says that
within a frame of reference, the movement of another frame of
reference is described by two functions velocity vectors : one
translational and one rotational.
To learn how to test the theory we must solve its equations (Equation
11).
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
There are those who argue that a frame of reference is a coordinate
system : they say that an observational frame of reference is a
coordinate system.
They are those who think that a frame of reference is not a coordinate
system. Wikipedia : "an observer in an observational frame of
reference can choose to employ any coordinate system (Cartesian,
polar, curvilinear, generalized, =85) to describe observations made from
that frame of reference. A change in the choice of this coordinate
system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not
entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference".
The notion of observational frame of reference has no meaning in
general relativity.
If we know the path of an experimenter P in a cartesian coordinate
system, we know its frame of reference only if we know the
trajectories (in this coordinate system) of entities which are
continuously stationary for P :
* In classical physics, all these trajectories are described by two
functions velocity vectors : one translational and one rotational.
* In a Minkowski space, in some situations where P moves with constant
velocity, it is argued that a particle which is continuously immobile
for P moves with the same constant speed. But we can not say anything
when the speed of P is not constant.
The mathematics of my document allow to clearly distinguish the
concepts of "frame of reference" and "coordinate systems".
In the document I have isolated the three assumptions that are
necessary and sufficient to construct the classical kinematics. They
define the concepts of velocity vectors and their composition law.
They postulate relationships between the choices that can carry out
different experimenters.
These assumptions do not allow a covariant formulation of theory of
electromagnetism, unlike the kinematics relativistic which is deducted
from "postulat 1". This "postulat 1" summarizes interpretation of the
special formulas of Lorentz made by Einstein and these Lorentz
formulas have been introduced to make the wave equation invariant
under a linear transformation of coordinates.
The solution of equation (11) must lead to new physics. This equation
is the relativistic version of the purely classical that says that
within a frame of reference, the movement of another frame of
reference is described by two functions velocity vectors : one
translational and one rotational.
To learn how to test the theory we must solve its equations (Equation
11).
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
Rommel Nana Dutchou
May 9, 2012, 12:26:28 PM5/9/12
to
Hello,
The only unknown in equation (11) is the function f_{1} which depends
on four real variables x_{1}, ... x_{4} (three spatial and one
temporal). There is a notation that comes from equation (6) and f_
{1i} is the partial derivative of f_ {1} with respect to x_{i}.
In classical physics, if P moves in a cartesian coordinate system, the
movement (in this coordinate system) of an entity that is continuously
immobile in the observational frame of reference of P is described by
only two functions velocity vectors: one translational and one
rotational.
In this relativistic theory, the velocity components (in this
coordinate system) of this entity come from equation (8) and depend
only solutions of (11).
It is normal if the solutions of (11) are parameterized by at least an
arbitrary function.
In the presentation of classical kinematics at the beginning of the
paper, I introduce a new concept which becomes important in my
theory : It is the operation that performs the linear combinations of
vectors in an observational frame of reference.
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
The only unknown in equation (11) is the function f_{1} which depends
on four real variables x_{1}, ... x_{4} (three spatial and one
temporal). There is a notation that comes from equation (6) and f_
{1i} is the partial derivative of f_ {1} with respect to x_{i}.
In classical physics, if P moves in a cartesian coordinate system, the
movement (in this coordinate system) of an entity that is continuously
immobile in the observational frame of reference of P is described by
only two functions velocity vectors: one translational and one
rotational.
In this relativistic theory, the velocity components (in this
coordinate system) of this entity come from equation (8) and depend
only solutions of (11).
It is normal if the solutions of (11) are parameterized by at least an
arbitrary function.
In the presentation of classical kinematics at the beginning of the
paper, I introduce a new concept which becomes important in my
theory : It is the operation that performs the linear combinations of
vectors in an observational frame of reference.
Sincerely,
Rommel Nana Dutchou
0 new messages