Einstein's first assumption of relative motion is that you cannot
detect motion through space alone and because of this you can say that
you are not moving.

Just because empty space is un demarked doesn't mean you can't have a
motion through it alone. Einstein's idea of relative motion excludes
any absolute motion through space. This is HIS MISTAKE.

One can tell if he is moving through space if he accelerates through
it. He will experience weight. Einstein asked people to ignore this
fact: that accelerating is the precursor to motion alone. All motion
through space is a result of acceleration. After you have accelerated
it appears you cannot know how fast you are moving through space. But
you have to ignore the fact you have accelerated for that to be true.

Relativity is based on ignorance of certain things. Once you realize
frames can know when they have accelerated Relativity becomes a theory
of appearences alone. When this is taken into acccount you can realize
only the frames that have accelerated through space will experience
the relativistic effects. Contrary to Eisntein the effects are not
reciprocal.

Burt Schwarzkauf

wrote in message ups.com...
Einstein's first assumption of relative motion is that you cannot
detect motion through space alone and because of this you can say that
you are not moving.

You forgot an important word in that sentence.
Can you find which word you forgot?


Just because empty space is un demarked doesn't mean you can't have a
motion through it alone. Einstein's idea of relative motion excludes
any absolute motion through space. This is HIS MISTAKE.

Not really. The idea of relative motion allows for the
motion ith respect to an absolute frame. If you find
such a frame, you have your absolute motion.
Have you found such a frame?


One can tell if he is moving through space if he accelerates through
it. He will experience weight. Einstein asked people to ignore this
fact: that accelerating is the precursor to motion alone. All motion
through space is a result of acceleration. After you have accelerated
it appears you cannot know how fast you are moving through space. But
you have to ignore the fact you have accelerated for that to be true.

After you have accelerated and carefully kept track of your
acceleration history, you can tell how fast you move relative
to the original frame in which you started keeping track of
your acceleration. How will you measure the motion of that
original frame "through space"?


Relativity is based on ignorance of certain things.

I had the impression that it is based on what we can actually
measure, in other words on knowledge of things, and that the
essence of it is to carefully avoid saying anything about that
of which we are ignorant.

Once you realize
frames can know when they have accelerated Relativity becomes a theory
of appearences alone.

Perhaps you prefer divine revelations over appearances?

When this is taken into acccount you can realize
only the frames that have accelerated through space will experience
the relativistic effects. Contrary to Eisntein the effects are not
reciprocal.

Can you elaborate on this and give a specific practical example?

Dirk Vdm

wrote in message
ups.com...
Einstein's first assumption of relative motion is that you cannot
detect motion through space alone and because of this you can say that
you are not moving.

Just because empty space is un demarked doesn't mean you can't have a
motion through it alone.

thoght what? relative to what? measured by what?

Einstein's idea of relative motion excludes
any absolute motion through space.

Then you would need space to ahve an absolute fixed frame.

This is HIS MISTAKE.

So some have claimed

One can tell if he is moving through space if he accelerates through
it.

That is acceleration .. a change in motion .. That does not require you to
have absolute motion to begin with.

So sorry .. try again on that explanation.

[snip]

Relativity is based on ignorance of certain things.

AS is your post

[snip further misunderstanding]

On Jun 23, 3:55 am, wrote:
Einstein's first assumption of relative motion is that you cannot
detect motion through space alone and because of this you can say that
you are not moving.

Indeed he explicitly made that claim with GRT. However, nowadays only
non-accelerated motion is looked at as truly "relative" in that sense.

Just because empty space is un demarked doesn't mean you can't have a
motion through it alone. Einstein's idea of relative motion excludes
any absolute motion through space. This is HIS MISTAKE.

Not really: he merely chose to describe *what can be observed*.

One can tell if he is moving through space if he accelerates through
it. He will experience weight. Einstein asked people to ignore this
fact: that accelerating is the precursor to motion alone. All motion
through space is a result of acceleration. After you have accelerated
it appears you cannot know how fast you are moving through space. But
you have to ignore the fact you have accelerated for that to be true.

Thus Big-bang theory is a prerequisite for you. Note that the purpose
was not history but decriptions of the laws of physics.

Relativity is based on ignorance of certain things. Once you realize
frames can know when they have accelerated Relativity becomes a theory
of appearences alone.

It is certainly accepted that often one should use the word "appear"
for exactness. Nevertheless, some effects are very real and this is
beyond debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

When this is taken into acccount you can realize
only the frames that have accelerated through space will experience
the relativistic effects. Contrary to Eisntein the effects are not
reciprocal.

Sorry I could not follow your argument; and that the effects are
reciprocal was explained by both Poincare and Einstein in 1905. Both
pointed out that that is so by mathematical necessity - you may just
as well state that 2+2=4 but 4-2=/=2. Actually, most mechanics books
teach you how to work that out for yourself. Did you have a look?

Harald

On Jun 22, 9:55 pm, wrote:
Einstein's first assumption of relative motion is that you cannot
detect motion through space alone and because of this you can say that
you are not moving.

He was talking about inertial motion, ie motion in a straight line at
a constant speed. This defines an inertial reference frame, where the
laws of physics are valid and there are no so-called fictictious
forces to indicate deviation from inertial motion.


Just because empty space is un demarked doesn't mean you can't have a
motion through it alone. Einstein's idea of relative motion excludes
any absolute motion through space. This is HIS MISTAKE.

One can tell if he is moving through space if he accelerates through
it. He will experience weight. Einstein asked people to ignore this
fact: that accelerating is the precursor to motion alone. All motion
through space is a result of acceleration. After you have accelerated
it appears you cannot know how fast you are moving through space. But
you have to ignore the fact you have accelerated for that to be true.

This doesn't get around Einstein's assumption at all, since he
excludes acclerated frames. Accelerated frames are always non-
inertial and always generate what are sometimes referred to as
inertial (or fictitious) forces. The presence of these forces alone
allows you to deduce that you are in a non-uniformly moving frame.

Just because you need to accelerate to reach a certain speed, doesn't
mean anything. As long as there is an applied force to cause you to
accelerate, you will be able to feel the inertial effects and know
that you are experiencing acclerated motion. Once you reach a
particular speed, if you are no longer applying the force,

Relativity is based on ignorance of certain things. Once you realize
frames can know when they have accelerated Relativity becomes a theory
of appearences alone. When this is taken into acccount you can realize
only the frames that have accelerated through space will experience
the relativistic effects. Contrary to Eisntein the effects are not
reciprocal.

Your whole post is based on ignorance of certain things. Namely
simple elementary physics. You can't criticise advanced concepts when
you still have not yet understand the basics. You need to go back and
learn simple dynamics, starting with Newton's laws of motion.