Why did Einstein
Peter Riedt
Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
of light just cut his theory in half?
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
6cff1c48-c3b3-429d...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com
> Why did Einstein
>
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
Because he was trying to reconcile Maxwell's equations with
Newton's laws of mechanics.
If you would have read the first 2 paragraphs of
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
you would know that.
But if you don't understand what Maxwell's equations are about,
and how they work, and how they behave under a Galilean
transformation, then you better find another hobby before you
hurt yourself.
> Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
> speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
> of light just cut his theory in half?
No.
Start with your first question.
Try going to school.
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
He didn't. He considered inertial frames because the mathematics of
physics is SIMPLER in inertial frames, as is well known.
> Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
> speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
> of light just cut his theory in half?
I believe he did not understand this in 1905, but he was certainly aware
of it by 1909, as he was traveling the road to GR. This does not "cut
his theory in half", it is merely one aspect of physics being SIMPLER in
inertial frames.
Tom Roberts
Shubee
> Why did Einstein
>
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
Einstein excluded non-inertial systems from special relativity because
it was a more difficult subject, far beyond his understanding.
Einstein left that part of special relativity to others.
The first person to understand acceleration in special relativity was
Max Born. Also, the most original and most essential contribution to
quantum physics was due to Max Born. Quantum mechanics is based on his
basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability
distributions. Born was David Hilbert's favorite student and Hilbert
became Born's mentor.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Spaceman
Because rule number 1 for the relativist is to ignore "relative motion"
that does not support the theory.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
In 1909 Einstein was certainly aware that the speed of light obeyed
the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light, Honest Roberts:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein
xxein: Einstein had to start somewhere, didn't he? Lorentz, Poincare
and Maxwell were pretty much all he had at that time. Of course, he
knew that gravity and acceleration existed but thought it better to
establish his relativity theory in the simplest form first.
That's how you learned it, didn't you? So did I.
But I think that is a bad method for the creation of a physical theory
and for both teaching and learning about it. If you know that there
are other factors to reckon with, you should address them in some
comprehensible way before coming to any conclusions. That said, this
lack limited how he could think about gravity. Q-theories share this
problem. Iow, by limiting a case, it provides less of an insight for
future development outside the case. But that is the way a scientific
understanding comes about. Unfortunately, not the physically correct
understanding, but we manage to get by with it pretty well.
I know there is a better, more comprehensive, way to understand what
the physic is. It is based upon experimental results rather than any
history of preliminary conclusions drawn from them (the limited
case). Why and how did we get so many different theories from the
same experiments? Because we came to different preliminary
conclusions based on previous ones. The assumptions were not the same
and we are free to change them. But it is all based on guessing.
Now a guess does not make a reality, but we often think it is. This
is the basis for how we understand things in general. This is how we
make our structure to live within. Now compare hunting wooly mamouth
to on-line shopping. We knew it all then and we know it all now.
Yeah, right.
Sue...
>
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
He had no theory of inertia and early on, falsely
assumed his particle light moved under the influence
of inertia.
> Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
> speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
> of light just cut his theory in half?
Anisotropic light speed cuts the particle light
concept in half. So he abandon the theory which
required it, special relativity, and persued
a curveable ~space time ether~ , general relativity.
~page 8
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.pdf
Sue...
>
> Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Tom,
perhaps we should be glad to have been spared the complexity of an all
inclusive theory. Imagine all the ifs and buts. However, I think we
should discard half of a theory and start again.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
xxein,
excellent reply. However, is to get pretty well by, pretty enough?
Peter Riedt
Koobee Wublee
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
First of all, let’s get this straight first. Einstein was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar.
** The postulate in the constancy of the speed of light to satisfy
the null results of the MMX and electromagnetism was first proposed by
Voigt 18 years before Einstein’s plagiarized work of 1905.
** The postulate in the principle of relativity was first proposed by
Galileo almost 300 years before Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar.
** The Lorentz transform was first derived by Larmor after allowing
the Voigt transform to satisfy the principle of relativity.
** The interpretation, known as SR, to the Lorentz transform was
first proposed by Poincare.
** The principle of equivalence was first proposed by Galileo also.
Einstein’s reverse-engineering of the Newtonian law of gravity does
not warrant an independent or sole discovery. It took Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar only more than 10 years to
understand the Newtonian law of gravity, by the way.
** Mercury’s orbital anomaly was first derived by Gerber in which
Einstein’s pre-1915 derivation mirrored very closely.
** The Einstein field equations were first derived by Hilbert only
after Einstein bragged about having derived Mercury’s orbital anomaly
(which is false).
None of the works related to relativity can be directly contributed to
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Well, that is except one thing --- the Cosmological constant where
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar proposed a negative
mass density in vacuum. Well, almost all the priests of GR and SR
known also as physicists today call that the dark energy to disguise
it ever from that absurd proposal of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. Of course, some scholars would just call
dark energy fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar in which many physicists seem to very happily suck up and
consume. <yuck>
> Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
> speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
> of light just cut his theory in half?
No, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar explained
gravitational redshift through the receding Doppler speed in which he
was very much confused with acceleration from speed. Gee! What a
nitwit! On top of that, time dilation is SR through relative speed
difference results in blue shift in transverse Doppler effect while
gravitational time dilation results in a redshift. <shrug>
No, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was never aware
of anything besides his own self promoted ego. He was nobody.
<shrug>
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2add5bf2-856f-4736...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 2:38 am, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
First of all, let’s get this straight first. Einstein was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar.
Zeroth of all, let's understand this: Wublee is a fuckhead, an aetherialist
crank and a liar who cannot explain how a ring laser gyroscope works when
clogged up with aether like candy floss in a spinning Kentucky Fried
Chicken bucket.
Ian Parker
> On Aug 17, 2:41 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > Why did Einstein exclude non inertial systems from special relativity?
>
> > He didn't. He considered inertial frames because the mathematics of
> > physics is SIMPLER in inertial frames, as is well known.
>
> > > Was he aware that observers in accelerated motion can measure the
> > > speed of light as anisotropic and therefore to protect the constancy
> > > of light just cut his theory in half?
>
> > I believe he did not understand this in 1905, but he was certainly aware
> > of it by 1909, as he was traveling the road to GR. This does not "cut
> > his theory in half", it is merely one aspect of physics being SIMPLER in
> > inertial frames.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> In 1909 Einstein was certainly aware that the speed of light obeyed
> the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light, Honest Roberts:
>
> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
> Radiation by Albert Einstein
> Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
> light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
> Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
> this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
> theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
> considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
> purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
> that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
> light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
> light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
> as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
> Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
> our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
> state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
> like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
> of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
> the emitting to the absorbing object."
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was not! Tell me this :-
Why is antigravity research STILL so heavily classified? I will post
continuously until I get a satisfactory answer.
- Ian Parker
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: That is our only option until we guess better and survey the
resultant.ouggene
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Now reviewing my response where in the hell did "ouggene- Hide
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -" come from? I didn't post that.
As a matter of fact, I'm almost sure that I posted a little more than
"That is our only option until we guess better and survey the
resultant." But not positively sure.
Is the structural internet becomming alive and wish to comment on it's
own?
What a glitch!