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.