greywolf42 wrote in message
...
Patrick Reany wrote in message
om...
Did SR invent the concept of 'frame of reference'?

First, what is a "frame of reference"? A "frame of reference" is an
aggregation of matter (usually nearly "rigid" in the Euclidean sense,
in which spacio-temporal measurements can be accurately made according
to some operational procedure. The spacial, or distance, measurements
can be done by scratching equally spaced marks in the floor and walls
of the frame to aid in making measurements of visible things which are
at certain points in the frame at certain times, according to a
conveniently place set of synchronized clocks.

So, did SR (or rather Einstein) invent the concept of "frame of
reference"? I say no.


{snip the rest of the irrelevant attempt at philosophy.}

That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the words
"frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your own,
personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference to a
'frame.' So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:fW8rb.22972$PD2.15101@fed1read05...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message
...
Patrick Reany wrote in message
om...
Did SR invent the concept of 'frame of reference'?

First, what is a "frame of reference"? A "frame of reference" is an
aggregation of matter (usually nearly "rigid" in the Euclidean sense,
in which spacio-temporal measurements can be accurately made
according
to some operational procedure. The spacial, or distance, measurements
can be done by scratching equally spaced marks in the floor and walls
of the frame to aid in making measurements of visible things which
are
at certain points in the frame at certain times, according to a
conveniently place set of synchronized clocks.

So, did SR (or rather Einstein) invent the concept of "frame of
reference"? I say no.


{snip the rest of the irrelevant attempt at philosophy.}

That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where
the words "frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior
to 1905. Your own, personal redefinitions and "imaginations"
of historical documents are irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Does Galileo count, with his "ship's cabin" relativity?

Of course Galileo counts:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22f...nce%22+galileo
and Descartes counts as well:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22f...e%22+descartes

Mingst asked Patrick for a reference of the *words*.
He didn't get his reference, so Mingst decides that the
*concept* did not exist ;-)

Dirk Vdm

(formerly) wrote:


Does Galileo count, with his "ship's cabin" relativity?

Absolutely. Galileo had the principle of relativity first.

Bob Kolker

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
om...
(Oriel36) wrote in message
. com...
The first principle of any investigation into any physical phenomena
is that the Earth rotates in 24 hours through 360 degrees,
Err... no.
Its more like 361 degrees in 24 hours.

The basic misinterpretation of the relativistic concept relies on how
Newton distinguished between absolute time and relative time,clearly
the original manuscript determines that he does it using the Equation
of Time which reflects the difference between the natural unequal day
and the 24 hour clock day.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Newton is correct,there is no equable motion corresponding to the 24
hour clock for the pace of this clock relies on the reduction of the
natural unequal day to the 24 hour clock day by making a compromise
with the annual orbital influence of Kepler's second law which causes
the variation.The addition and subtraction of minutes reflects a
geometric compromise permitting the seamless transition from one 24
hour day to the next even though there is a natural variation using
the noon meridian alignment.The longitude problem was resolved by this
principle insofar as the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency isolates the
axial rotation from its natural orbital motion however it still
retained the natural variation as one half of the EoT.






The extra degree is needed to keep noon at zenith, otherwise the sun would
be overhead at midnight six months from now.

0
|



0 - Sun - 0
*



|
0

For example, if our year was zero days long, then Earth would need to rotate
90 degrees each quarter to keep the sun overhead. The moon does this as it
faces the Earth. If our year were 4 days long, then the Earth would need to
rotate 360+90 = 450 degrees each day. As it happens, our year is (roughly)
360 days long, so the Earth needs to rotate 361 degrees from noon to noon.
If the Earth spun in the opposite direction (sunrise in the West, sunset in
the East) a 359 degree rotation would be needed.
A siderial day (about 4 minutes less than a solar day) is 360 degrees. You
may have noticed that the constellation Orion is in our (Northern) Winter
sky, but is absent from our Summer nights. It is still there, of course, but
it is seen in our Summer days when you cannot see starlight too easily.
In the diagram above the star (*) on the right is "behind" the sun when the
Earth (0) is at the left of the diagram, and therefore in the sky at noon.
Six months later, the star is overhead at midnight, between the Sun and that
star. But don't take my word for it. Go outside each night and look. Now
and for the rest of your life. I do. You'll be amazed at what you'll find,
just by looking and wondering, discovering for yourself, instead of
listening to what others tell you.

You too have the same siderealist tendency of linking the Earth's
rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and relativity is all
siderealism.Albert got away with his general relativity and 'warped
space' because he treats the Earth's motion both axial and orbital as
one motion.The isolation of the Earth's axial rotation to the 24
hour/360 degree equivalency also determines the pace of everything
else including the sidereal value but again,the original determination
of the pace of a day relied on the ability to isolate axial rotation
from orbital motion using the only the Sun as a reference.

Without question the same tendency to retreat to quasi-geocentric view
of the motion of the Sun and stars rather than place emphasis on the
motion of the Earth generates your siderealistic outlook,this is
common not only to those who adhere to relativity but also to those
who oppose it.The exquisite clock system using the Sun as a reference
was developed by men who were thoroughly heliocentric in outlook.





Incidentally, the 360 degree division of the circle was chosen by the
ancient Babylonians because if this.

Androcles


For all the linguistic fireworks you have more in common with
relativity than with those who developed accurate clocks based on the
motions of the Earth using only the Sun as a reference.Your outlook is
based on the circumstellar framework for you tether the Earth's
rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion.Perhaps you missed the
part where the .986 degree sidereal differential for each axial
rotation translates into 3 minutes 56 seconds but then that
differential is based on 1 degree = 4 minutes and 360 degrees = 24
hours.







Albert
violates this basic premise by determining stellar circumpolar motion
describes a circle in 24 hours (astronomical 24 hour day)

You never did explain how I can rotate 360 degrees, move
partway around an orbit, and still be facing the center.

Paint a circle on the ground. Stand on the circle,
facing the center. Rotate exactly 360 degrees.
You are again facing the center. Now, without
changing orientation, step one pace
to the right. Are you still facing the center?

- Randy

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:fW8rb.22972$PD2.15101@fed1read05...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Does Galileo count, with his "ship's cabin" relativity?

Of course Galileo counts:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22f...nce%22+galileo
and Descartes counts as well:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22f...e%22+descartes

Mingst asked Patrick for a reference of the *words*.
He didn't get his reference, so Mingst decides that the
*concept* did not exist ;-)

When one discusses a concept by name, then one must begin with a common
definition of what that name entails. Or we can all waste our time talking
about what we each think the name means. And if we use different
definitions, we get nowhere. So we need to begin by agreeing on what the
words 'frame of reference' mean.

Patrick has elsewhere spent a great deal of bandwidth 'freely creating' his
own definition (which he then changed). So, I attempted to ground the
discussion by focusing on what the original user of the term meant.

Einstein's basis for the PoR was significantly different than prior physics.
Due primarily to his identification of the *observer* as the primary
foundation for physics. Whereas, prior to Einstein, the foundation was the
*objects*. Hence, there has been a significant change in *concept.*

Therefore, one needs to understand the difference between a 'frame of
reference' (as the concept was first defined with words) and whatever
'concept' might be discussed. So, we need to identify the explicit
definition of the phrase 'frame of reference' in order to quibble properly.
Words and phrases MEAN something when we discuss concepts.

See my reply to dlzc.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

(formerly) dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:fW8rb.22972$PD2.15101@fed1read05...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message
...
Patrick Reany wrote in message
om...
Did SR invent the concept of 'frame of reference'?

First, what is a "frame of reference"? A "frame of reference" is an
aggregation of matter (usually nearly "rigid" in the Euclidean
sense,
in which spacio-temporal measurements can be accurately made
according
to some operational procedure. The spacial, or distance,
measurements
can be done by scratching equally spaced marks in the floor and
walls
of the frame to aid in making measurements of visible things which
are
at certain points in the frame at certain times, according to a
conveniently place set of synchronized clocks.

So, did SR (or rather Einstein) invent the concept of "frame of
reference"? I say no.


{snip the rest of the irrelevant attempt at philosophy.}

That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the
words
"frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your
own,
personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference to
a
'frame.' So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Does Galileo count, with his "ship's cabin" relativity?

No. He didn't use the term 'frame.'

Surprisingly, the term does not appear anywhere in Einstein's collection of
founding papers of relativity ("The Principle of Relativity" Dover).
Beginning with his 1905 paper, Einstein equates "systems of coordinates"
with "rigid bodies." Prior users of the term 'coordinate system' were not
tied to rigid bodies. The concept of the requirement of 'rigid bodies' as
the basis of systems of coordinates in SR was central to Minkowski's
invention of space-time ("Space and Time", 1908, section II).

The closest that Einstein comes is brief mentions of 'system of reference'
side-by-side with 'systems of coordinates' in 1911 "On the Influence of
Gravitation on the Propagation of Light" (section 3) and 1916 "The
Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," (section 2). He uses them
in the same sentence (on p115 Dover): "In a space which is free of
gravitational fields, we introduce a Galilean system of reference, K (x, y,
z, t), and also a system of co-ordinates K' (x', y', z', t') in uniform
rotation relatively to K." The terms are used interchangably from this
point on in the work. However, there does seem to be the distinction that
the 'system of reference' is always the "unmoving" system. And the 'system
of coordinates' is always the "moving" system.

I had assumed that 'twas an Einsteinian invention. But I was wrong, as I
can't find the term in any early work by Einstein. It appears that it is an
Eddington invention: "Space, Time and Gravitation," 1920.

Eddington does not define the term. It is first mentioned on page 41:

"The problem of rotation affords a hint as to the cause of the incolete
relativity of Newtonian mechanics. The laws of motion are formulated with
respect to an unaccelerated observer, and do not apply to a frame of
reference rotating with the earth. Yet mathematicians frequently do use a
rotating frame. Some modification of teh laws is then necessary; and the
modification is made by introducing a centrigugal force -- not regarded as a
real force like gravitation, but as a mathematical fiction employed to
correct for the improper choice of a frame of reference."


Eddington discusses the difference between "right" and "wrong" frames of
reference on p. 42-43.

"The question then, whether there exists a distinction between 'right'
frames of reference and 'wrong' frames, turns on whether the use of a
'wrong' frame produces effects experimentally distinguishable from any
natural effects which can be perceived when a 'right' frame is used. If
there is no such difference, all frames may be regarded as on the same
footing and equally right. In that case we can have a complete relativity
of natural phenomena. Since the effect of departing from Newton's standard
frame is the introduction of a field of force, this generalized relativity
theory must be largely occupied with the nature of fields of force."

"The precise meaning of the statement that all frames of refernce are on the
same footing is rather difficult to grasp. We believe that there are
absolute things in the world -- not only matter, but certain characteristics
in empty space or aether. In the atmosphere a frame of reference which
moves with the air is differentiated from other frames moving in a different
manner; this is because, besides discharging the normal functions of a frame
of reference, the air frame embodies certain of the absolute properties of
the matter existing in the region. Similarly, if in empty space we choose a
frame of reference which more or less follows the lines of the absolute
structure in the region, the frame will usurp some of the absolute qualities
of that structure. What we mean by the equivalence of all frames is that
they are not differentiated by any qualities formerly supposed to be
intrinsic to the frames themselves -- rest, rectangularity, acceleration --
independent of the absolute structure of the world that is referred to them.
Accordingly the objection to attributying absolute properties to Newton's
frame of reference is not that it is impossible for a frame of refernce to
acquire absolute properies, but that the Newtonian frame has been laid down
on the basis of relative knowledge without any attempt to follow the lines
of absolute structure."

It appears that in this first appearance of the term 'frame of reference'
requires that the 'frame of reference' be overlaid onto a pre-existing field
of force. Which certainly isn't the same as the Newtonian coordinate
systems that existed prior to the relativists.

But both are completely different than Patrick's 'free creation.'

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

{snip higher levels}

Unsnip relevant part

| That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the words
| "frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your own,
| personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
| irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Words and concepts and trying to weasel out of it ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

{snip higher levels}

Unsnip relevant part

| That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the words
| "frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your own,
| personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
| irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Words and concepts and trying to weasel out of it ;-)

Dirk Vdm

reference body = reference frame

Patrick can't even find a reference for Einstein using the term
"reference frame." However, Patrick claims that it is merely a
different way to say "reference body" -- a term Einstein did use. The
notion of a body of matter used for making measurements within --
regardless of the name you prefer to give to it -- to reveal the
physical behavior of systems in terms of laws goes back at least to
Galileo in his presentation of the relativity of the laws of mechanics
as revealed on a ship at "rest" compared to when it is in "motion." I
have already given the reference for this. The ship in Galileo's
thought experiment is a rigid chunk of matter that is used to
establish spacio-temporal coordinates of events. It is one of those
"reference bodies" referred to by Einstein or one of those "reference
frames" referred to by modern physicists.

If Lorentz did not use the notion of a frame of reference, what was
the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction a contraction of? The contraction
of the armature of the MMX interferometer is a literal physical
contraction of the unit of measure along the arm, taking the form of
the matter in the arm compressing, resulting in the closing of the
distance between the graduations marked off on the arm relative to a
reference body at rest with respect to the rest frame of the ether.
The armature IS a reference body, i.e., a reference frame, of its own.

This is precisely why in physics we don't just talk about abstract
coordinate systems, except to make passive coordinate transformations
in a given frame, contrary to what some posters here have claimed;
instead, we talk about reference bodies, which are coordinatized
chunks of matter. When Einstein referred to a "system of coordinates,"
that's what he referred to -- a reference body.

*******************************************

Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General
Theory. 1920.


IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity


UP to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid
reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in
reference to the train.


http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html


In the book it's on page 25 and again on page 26.

****************************************

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

{snip higher levels}

Unsnip relevant part

| That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the words
| "frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your own,
| personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
| irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Words and concepts and trying to weasel out of it ;-)

Dirk Vdm

reference body = reference frame

Patrick, maybe you misunderstood.
I have no problem with your viewpoint.
I was quoting Mingst and his devious way of making
and defending some silly point.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

Unsnip relevant part

| That should be simple to decide. Simply find a reference where the
words
| "frame of reference", or even "frame" are used prior to 1905. Your
own,
| personal redefinitions and "imaginations" of historical documents are
| irrelevant.

Well, that settles that. Patrick can't find a pre-Einstein
reference
to a 'frame.'
So, I guess it was Einstein (SR) that invented the concept of
'frame of reference.'

Words and concepts and trying to weasel out of it ;-)

The usual cowardly invisible snip-the-evidence and insult.

Bye, coward.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}