Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Replies: 204   Last Post: Jul 13, 2010 11:11 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 harald Posts: 73 Registered: 1/19/10
Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted: Jul 12, 2010 4:46 AM

On Jul 12, 1:06 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> harald says...
>
>
>

> >> > I agree that there is a paradox in his introduction:
>
> >> > 1. Natural phenomena (incl. mechanical phenomena) suggested to him
> >> > that these do not have "properties corresponding to the idea of
> >> > absolute rest"
> >> > 2. Based on that, he accepted for all natural phenomena the classical
> >> > PoR, which is defined relative to the *special* group of reference
> >> > systems "for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

>
> >> > Now, that special group of reference systems of statement 2 suggested
> >> > to Newton the idea of of absolute rest - which is in disaccord with
> >> > Einstein's suggestion in statement 1!

>
> >> No, it doesn't.
>
> >It did - Newton can't hear you anymore, he is dead; but we can still
> >"hear" him through his writings.

>
> >> The special group of reference systems are the
> >> inertial reference systems, which implies NOTHING about absolute rest.

>
> >I now compare one page of arguments by Newton (+ one page by Langevin)
> >with ZERO arguments by you. So far I find them more convincing than
> >you. Why would that be? ;-)

>
> Okay, well I've looked at the references you have provided for what
> Newton said, and they just do not seem to be correct. He writes, for
> example:
>
> -----------------------Begin Newton quote---------------------------------
> The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of
> receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a
> circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular motion,
> they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion. If a vessel,
> hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is strongly twisted,
> then filled with water, and held at rest together with the water; after, by the
> sudden action of another force, it is whirled about the contrary way, and while
> the cord is untwisting itself, the vessel continues, for some time in this
> motion; the surface of the water will at first be plain, as before the vessel
> began to move: but the vessel, by gradually communicating its motion to the
> water, will make it begin sensibly to evolve, and recede by little and little
> from the middle, and ascend to the sides of the vessel, forming itself into a
> concave figure (as I have experienced), and the swifter the motion becomes, the
> higher will the water rise, till at last, performing its revolutions in the same
> times with the vessel, it becomes relatively at rest in it. This ascent of the
> water shows its endeavour to recede from the axis of its motion; and the true
> and absolute circular motion of the water, which is here directly contrary to
> the relative, discovers itself, and may be measured by this endeavour. At first,
> when the relative motion of the water in the vessel was greatest, it produced no
> endeavour to recede from the axis; the water showed no tendency to the
> circumference, nor any ascent towards the sides of the vessel, but remained of a
> plain surface, and therefore its true circular motion had not yet begun. But
> afterwards, when the relative motion of the water had decreased, the ascent
> thereof towards the sides of the vessel proved its endeavour to recede from the
> axis; and this endeavour showed the real circular motion of the water
> perpetually increasing, till it had acquired its greatest quantity, when the
> water rested relatively in the vessel. And therefore this endeavour, does not
> depend upon any translation of the water in respect of the ambient bodies, nor
> can true circular motion be defined by such translation. There is only one real
> circular motion of any one revolving body, corresponding to only one power of
> endeavouring to recede from its axis of motion, as its proper and adequate
> effect; but relative motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable,
> according to the various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other
> relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they
> may partake of that one only true motion. And therefore in their system who
> suppose that our heavens, revolving below the sphere of the fixed stars, carry
> the planets along with them; the several parts of those heavens and the planets,
> which are indeed relatively at rest in their heavens, do yet really move. For
> they change their position one to another (which never happens to bodies truly
> at rest), and being carried together with their heavens, partake of their
> motions, and as parts of revolving wholes, endeavour to recede from the axis of
> their motions.
> ------------------End Newton quote-----------------------------------------
>
> This argument is completely wrong, if it is understood as an argument in favor
> of an absolute standard for rest. All the phenomena that he describes for
> absolute motion (you spin a bucket of water, and the surface of the water
> becomes concave) works exactly the same way in *any* inertial frame. It
> doesn't single out a rest frame.

Indeed it doesn't, nor did I see him pretend that it does...
As you know, the PoR is included in Newtonian mechanics (just in other
words).

> What these experiments *do* single out are the inertial frames.

Exactly, that's the point.

> If you havce a
> system of coordinates, you can by performing various experiments determine
> whether your coordinates are inertial, Cartesian coordinates, as opposed to
> curvilinear, accelerated coordinates.

Einstein understood (AFTER 1905) that Newton tried to model a physical
cause; and that only Mach proposed an alternative explanation (instead
of "Space", "the stars"). However, neither Mach nor himself could
create a fully "Machian" theory - and, if I'm not mistaken, nobody
else so far.

> How much does an incorrect argument count towards a conclusion? I would say
> nothing at all. Newton's arguments, to the extent that they are arguing for
> the existence of an absolute standard of rest, are incorrect.
>
> Now, it's always possible that I've misinterpreted Newton. He's not around to
> say one way or the other.

Yes you surely did misinterpret him - but there isn't much room for
such misunderstandings.

Regards,
Harald

Date Subject Author
6/26/10 Koobee Wublee
6/26/10 Koobee Wublee
6/26/10 Peter Webb
6/29/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 artful
7/2/10 harald
7/2/10 Androcles
7/2/10 Daryl McCullough
7/2/10 harald
7/2/10 Daryl McCullough
7/2/10 PD
7/3/10 colp
7/3/10 eric gisse
7/5/10 harald
7/5/10 Daryl McCullough
7/11/10 harald
7/11/10 Daryl McCullough
7/11/10 Daryl McCullough
7/11/10 colp
7/11/10 eric gisse
7/12/10 harald
7/12/10 Daryl McCullough
7/12/10 harald
7/12/10 Daryl McCullough
7/13/10 harald
6/29/10 colp
6/29/10 PD
7/1/10 artful
7/2/10 PD
7/3/10 colp
7/9/10 Ken Seto
7/9/10 eric gisse
7/10/10 colp
7/4/10 PD
6/29/10 colp
6/29/10 Androcles
7/3/10 PD
7/10/10 harald
7/10/10 PD
7/10/10 PD
7/3/10 Koobee Wublee
7/4/10 hanson
7/4/10 whoever
7/6/10 Koobee Wublee
7/6/10 Peter Webb
7/7/10 hanson
7/5/10 colp
7/5/10 whoever
7/5/10 eric gisse
7/11/10 harald
7/11/10 Daryl McCullough
7/12/10 harald
7/12/10 Daryl McCullough
6/29/10 PD
7/3/10 colp
7/4/10 whoever
7/4/10 Cosmik Debris
7/4/10 Androcles
7/10/10 colp
7/11/10 Ken Seto
7/6/10 PD
6/30/10 colp
6/30/10 whoever
7/4/10 PD
7/11/10 PD
7/7/10 colp
6/30/10 PD
7/3/10 harald
7/3/10 Daryl McCullough
7/3/10 harald
7/4/10 Daryl McCullough
7/4/10 eric gisse
7/4/10 artful
7/4/10 Ken Seto
7/4/10 harald
7/4/10 Androcles
7/4/10 Daryl McCullough
7/4/10 Daryl McCullough
7/4/10 Aetherist
7/4/10 Y.Porat
7/4/10 harald
7/4/10 Daryl McCullough
7/5/10 colp
7/5/10 whoever
7/5/10 colp
7/11/10 colp
7/11/10 Ken Seto
7/5/10 Koobee Wublee
7/5/10 harald
7/5/10 Daryl McCullough
7/5/10 harald
7/5/10 Daryl McCullough
7/5/10 harald
7/5/10 Daryl McCullough
7/5/10 Daryl McCullough
7/5/10 harald
7/5/10 Aetherist
7/5/10 eric gisse
7/5/10 hanson
7/6/10 harald
7/6/10 harald
7/6/10 Daryl McCullough
7/6/10 Aetherist
7/6/10 Aetherist
7/7/10 harald
7/7/10 harald
7/6/10 harald
7/6/10 Daryl McCullough
7/7/10 harald
7/7/10 Daryl McCullough
7/7/10 Tom Roberts
7/7/10 Daryl McCullough
7/8/10 Tom Roberts
7/7/10 harald
7/7/10 Daryl McCullough
7/7/10 harald
7/7/10 Daryl McCullough
7/7/10 colp
7/7/10 Androcles
7/7/10 whoever
7/7/10 J. Clarke
7/7/10 colp
7/7/10 artful
7/7/10 J. Clarke
7/7/10 colp
7/7/10 eric gisse
7/8/10 harald
7/7/10 PD
7/8/10 harald
7/8/10 Daryl McCullough
7/8/10 harald
7/8/10 Edward Green
7/8/10 Daryl McCullough
6/30/10 colp
7/5/10 artful
7/6/10 PD
7/12/10 PD
7/7/10 colp
7/7/10 whoever
7/7/10 eric gisse
6/30/10 artful
6/30/10 Daryl McCullough
7/6/10 colp
6/30/10 artful
7/1/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 whoever
7/1/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 harald
7/1/10 Androcles
7/1/10 PD
6/30/10 Koobee Wublee
6/30/10 whoever
7/1/10 eric gisse
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/6/10 PD
7/1/10 colp
7/1/10 colp
7/1/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 whoever
7/1/10 PD
7/1/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 PD
7/1/10 eric gisse
7/1/10 harald
7/1/10 Koobee Wublee
7/1/10 artful
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/2/10 artful
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/2/10 artful
7/2/10 harald
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/2/10 PD
7/2/10 Koobee Wublee
7/2/10 PD
7/2/10 harald
7/3/10 Daryl McCullough
7/1/10 artful
7/1/10 PD
7/8/10 PD
7/3/10 colp
7/1/10 colp
7/7/10 colp
7/1/10 harald
7/1/10 Androcles
7/1/10 harald
7/1/10 Androcles
7/1/10 artful
7/1/10 artful
7/2/10 harald
7/2/10 PD
7/1/10 colp
7/3/10 PD
7/6/10 Koobee Wublee
7/6/10 Peter Webb