Timeline for What is the precise statement in Newtonian mechanics regarding the physical laws in all inertial frames?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2021 at 14:44 | comment | added | Sridhar | Thank you for whatever light thrown regarding my query. If you have further questions, please refer to text books. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 12:35 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | What do you mean by forward and inverse transformations? | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 11:15 | comment | added | Sridhar | If you two frames of which one is a "preferred" one, then among these 2 frames, forward and inverse transformations are not consistent. In this sense, the preferred frame is special. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 10:11 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | I mean in what possible way might a preferred frame differ from all others? How would you tell it apart from all the others? What would make it special? | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 9:52 | comment | added | Sridhar | What you have in mind in asking this question is not clear to me | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 8:58 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | But what do you mean by 'preferred'? | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 8:02 | comment | added | Sridhar | In any case, if Einstein's first postulate doesn't touch upon privileged frame, I have no issue; Newton's position in this regard is not of concern to me. One of the reasons for my wanting to know what Newtonian mechanics(NM) say in this regard is that if it is already there in NM, what is the need for Einstein to put it in the form of a postulate. Someone said Einstein's postulate includes electrodynamics also while in NM, it is not. NM and electrodynamics are connected through the force and as such, I feel NM can include indirectly electrodynamics also as regards the first postulate. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 7:58 | comment | added | Sridhar | Explicit statement is not necessary but it is ok, if his laws imply the first postulate. But I am not clear as to how the Newton's laws can imply the postulate. I, however, admit that I haven't made serious attempt to understand this. I shall apply my mind to this again. By privileged frame I meant what Einstein, as I perceive, should have had in mind. The meaning could be preferred frame. If there exists a preferred inertial frame, then this implies that all inertial frames are not equivalent. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 5:53 | comment | added | Professor Sushing | When you say the postulate doesn't exist in NM, all you mean is that Newton himself didn't express it explicitly- the postulate is a statement of a consequence of the laws of motion Newton did state. If you look for a 'privileged' reference frame, what do you mean by 'privileged'? | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 3:16 | comment | added | Sridhar | My main concern is to confirm that Einstein's first postulate doesn't mention or imply anything on privileged frame. Newton's either believed in a privileged or absolute frame or took an unclear position in this regard. Hope I am right. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 3:13 | comment | added | Sridhar | Thanks to all for the comments. I am encouraged in my aim which is to drive home the point that the first postulate of special relativity theory doesn't exist as such in Newtonian Mechanics contrary to what most text books say. Further, my view is that this postulate only means that the form of the laws or expressions are identical in all inertial frames and conveys nothing about the possibility or otherwise of the existence of privileged frame. The first postulate seems to be Einstein's invention. Of course, he insisted elsewhere that there cannot be a privileged frame. | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 20:08 | history | answered | Professor Sushing | CC BY-SA 4.0 |