rotchm:

If SR is only for inertial frames, but can calculate the motions of non inertial objects "in" its own frame, then you still have a problem don't you?

Who gets to decide if that non inertial object is "in" the inertial frame?

And if we consider the stupid idea of Equivalence, then its just as valid for that non inertial object that you say is 'In" the inertial frame, to justly claim that its NOT MOVING, (or is moving inertially,) and its the OTHER Frame that's doing all the accelerating. Who is in who's frame becomes the question. Relative motion is subjective.
If you have picked your frame and called it the inertial frame that has non inertial objects "in" it. then you just have done the unpardonable sin, and have declared a PREFERRED frame for yourself.

GR and STR are mutually exclusive, STR is NOT a subset of GR.

If GR can accommodate inertial frames then we can safely delete the whole theory of SR, toss out the equations. and simply use the equations of GR.

GR requires absoluteness but SRT abhors and forbids any talk of anything absolute. The two cant co exist as theories and both be right. (Hint BOTH are wrong)

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> rotchm:
>
> If SR is only for inertial frames, but can calculate the motions of non
> inertial objects "in" its own frame, then you still have a problem don't you?
>
> Who gets to decide if that non inertial object is "in" the inertial frame?

I don’t think you know what “inertial frame” means.

I don’t think you know that each and every inertial frame contains all
objects. All of them.

I don’t think you know how to tell an inertial frame from a non-inertial
frame, do you?

>
> And if we consider the stupid idea of Equivalence, then its just as valid
> for that non inertial object that you say is 'In" the inertial frame, to
> justly claim that its NOT MOVING, (or is moving inertially,) and its the
> OTHER Frame that's doing all the accelerating. Who is in who's frame
> becomes the question. Relative motion is subjective.

Nope. Again, you are using comic-book-level representations of relativity.
Two observers at rest in two different frames, one accelerating and the
other one not, can unambiguously determine which one is inertial and which
one is not.

You are making a long sequence of silly statements that show that you in
fact know nothing about relativity and what it actually says. It might be
good for you to take a pause and read a book.

> If you have picked your frame and called it the inertial frame that has
> non inertial objects "in" it. then you just have done the unpardonable
> sin, and have declared a PREFERRED frame for yourself.
>
> GR and STR are mutually exclusive, STR is NOT a subset of GR.
>
> If GR can accommodate inertial frames then we can safely delete the whole
> theory of SR, toss out the equations. and simply use the equations of GR.
>
> GR requires absoluteness but SRT abhors and forbids any talk of anything
> absolute. The two cant co exist as theories and both be right. (Hint BOTH are wrong)
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 1/5/22 5:43 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
> If SR is only for inertial frames, but can calculate the motions of
> non inertial objects "in" its own frame, then you still have a
> problem don't you?

No, because SR is NOT "only for inertial frames". Using inertial
frames/coordinates makes things much simpler, and is how the basic
equations are derived, but one can use non-inertial coordinates. And
certainly one can use inertial frames to model non-inertial objects.

> Who gets to decide if that non inertial object is "in" the inertial
> frame?

In SR, every object in the universe can be related to the coordinates of
every inertial frame, and is thus "in" it -- no "decision" is necessary.
If you really meant "at rest in", then no "decision" is needed, either,
because it is obvious which inertial frame it is at rest in.

> And if we consider the stupid idea of Equivalence, then its just as
> valid for that non inertial object that you say is 'In" the inertial
> frame, to justly claim that its NOT MOVING, (or is moving
> inertially,) and its the OTHER Frame that's doing all the
> accelerating.

You are very confused. The equivalence in SR is just among inertial
frames, and applies ONLY to their coordinates and the laws of physics
referenced to those coordinates. No objects are involved at all, except
insofar as they obey the laws of physics.

"Not moving" is not involved in that. And it is trivial to differentiate
inertial frames from accelerating objects (except for minuscule
accelerations).

> Who is in who's frame becomes the question.

Not really. See above.

> Relative motion is subjective.

Not really. Relative motion is what one measures. But it does depend on
which frame one uses for the measurement.

> If you have picked your frame and called it the inertial frame that
> has non inertial objects "in" it. then you just have done the
> unpardonable sin, and have declared a PREFERRED frame for yourself.

NONSENSE! By selecting an inertial frame one has selected an inertial
frame -- there is NOTHING "absolute" or "preferred" [#] about that.

[#] Preferred in the sense physicists use it here, meaning
a frame that appears explicitly in the laws of physics,
such as an "aether frame". As opposed to a frame that
might be "preferred" because it is simplest to use.

> GR and STR are mutually exclusive, STR is NOT a subset of GR.

You are VERY confused. Or ignorant. Or both. There are two quite
different relationships between SR and GR:
A) SR is a valid solution to the equations of GR for an
empty universe. This is of academic interest only.
B) SR is the local limit of GR, at every point in any
manifold. This is what permits many experimenters to
analyze their data using SR, which is enormously
simpler than using GR.

> If GR can accommodate inertial frames then we can safely delete the
> whole theory of SR, toss out the equations. and simply use the
> equations of GR.

You are very confused. Inertial frames (in the sense of SR) are a red
herring -- the world we inhabit does not admit such frames, because it
has gravity. Approximations to GR use LOCALLY inertial frames --
coordinates that are approximately inertial in a limited region of the
manifold.

The equations of SR -- narrowly defined as its geometry -- are the local
limit of the equations of GR. But the laws of physics as we know them
today (not including gravity) are expressed in terms of SR, specifically
local Lorentz invariance. Note that the Einstein field equation of GR
uses the energy-momentum tensor, which must be calculated using the
equations we know for the laws of physics that apply to the matter in
the universe: the standard model of particle physics (or more commonly,
approximations to it).

> GR requires absoluteness but SRT abhors and forbids any talk of
> anything absolute.

The relationship (B) mentioned above resolves this: SR is the local
limit of GR. So local things like particle physics are addressed using
SR, while gravitation and large-scale geometry (cosmology) are the
province of GR.

> The two cant co exist as theories and both be right. (Hint BOTH
> are wrong)

Not so -- the two coexist naturally, without problems, once one
recognizes that the infinite inertial frames of SR cannot apply, but
locally inertial frames do. It is, however, not unlikely that GR is
merely some sort of approximation to some as yet unknown theory, but not
for the reasons you mentioned.

Tom Roberts

Op 07-jan.-2022 om 19:04 schreef Tom Roberts:
> On 1/5/22 5:43 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
>> If SR is only for inertial frames, but can calculate the motions of
>> non inertial objects "in" its own frame, then you still have a problem
>> don't you?
>
> No, because SR is NOT "only for inertial frames". Using inertial
> frames/coordinates makes things much simpler, and is how the basic
> equations are derived, but one can use non-inertial coordinates. And
> certainly one can use inertial frames to model non-inertial objects.
>
>> Who gets to decide if that non inertial object is "in" the inertial
>> frame?
>
> In SR, every object in the universe can be related to the coordinates of
> every inertial frame, and is thus "in" it -- no "decision" is necessary.
> If you really meant "at rest in", then no "decision" is needed, either,
> because it is obvious which inertial frame it is at rest in.
>
>> And if we consider the stupid idea of Equivalence, then its just as
>> valid for that non inertial object that you say is 'In" the inertial
>> frame, to justly claim that its NOT MOVING, (or is moving inertially,)
>> and its the OTHER Frame that's doing all the accelerating.
>
> You are very confused. The equivalence in SR is just among inertial
> frames, and applies ONLY to their coordinates and the laws of physics
> referenced to those coordinates. No objects are involved at all, except
> insofar as they obey the laws of physics.
>
> "Not moving" is not involved in that. And it is trivial to differentiate
> inertial frames from accelerating objects (except for minuscule
> accelerations).
>
>> Who is in who's frame becomes the question.
>
> Not really. See above.
>
>> Relative motion is subjective.
>
> Not really. Relative motion is what one measures. But it does depend on
> which frame one uses for the measurement.
>
>> If you have picked your frame and called it the inertial frame that
>> has non inertial objects "in" it. then you just have done the
>> unpardonable sin, and have declared a PREFERRED frame for yourself.
>
> NONSENSE! By selecting an inertial frame one has selected an inertial
> frame -- there is NOTHING "absolute" or "preferred" [#] about that.
>
>     [#] Preferred in the sense physicists use it here, meaning
>     a frame that appears explicitly in the laws of physics,
>     such as an "aether frame". As opposed to a frame that
>     might be "preferred" because it is simplest to use.
>
>> GR and STR are mutually exclusive, STR is NOT a subset of GR.
>
> You are VERY confused. Or ignorant. Or both. There are two quite
> different relationships between SR and GR:
>    A) SR is a valid solution to the equations of GR for an
>       empty universe. This is of academic interest only.
>    B) SR is the local limit of GR, at every point in any
>       manifold. This is what permits many experimenters to
>       analyze their data using SR, which is enormously
>       simpler than using GR.
>
>> If GR can accommodate inertial frames then we can safely delete the
>> whole theory of SR, toss out the equations. and simply use the
>> equations of GR.
>
> You are very confused. Inertial frames (in the sense of SR) are a red
> herring -- the world we inhabit does not admit such frames, because it
> has gravity. Approximations to GR use LOCALLY inertial frames --
> coordinates that are approximately inertial in a limited region of the
> manifold.
>
> The equations of SR -- narrowly defined as its geometry -- are the local
> limit of the equations of GR. But the laws of physics as we know them
> today (not including gravity) are expressed in terms of SR, specifically
> local Lorentz invariance. Note that the Einstein field equation of GR
> uses the energy-momentum tensor, which must be calculated using the
> equations we know for the laws of physics that apply to the matter in
> the universe: the standard model of particle physics (or more commonly,
> approximations to it).
>
>> GR requires absoluteness but SRT abhors and forbids any talk of
>> anything absolute.
>
> The relationship (B) mentioned above resolves this: SR is the local
> limit of GR. So local things like particle physics are addressed using
> SR, while gravitation and large-scale geometry (cosmology) are the
> province of GR.
>
>> The two cant co exist as theories and both be right.    (Hint BOTH are
>> wrong)
>
> Not so -- the two coexist naturally, without problems, once one
> recognizes that the infinite inertial frames of SR cannot apply, but
> locally inertial frames do. It is, however, not unlikely that GR is
> merely some sort of approximation to some as yet unknown theory, but not
> for the reasons you mentioned.
>
> Tom Roberts

Multiple beautiful pearls for a big ugly swine.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 19:04:48 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> In SR, every object in the universe can be related to the coordinates of
> every inertial frame, and is thus "in" it -- no "decision" is necessary.
> If you really meant "at rest in", then no "decision" is needed, either,
> because it is obvious which inertial frame it is at rest in.

And in the real world, forbidden by your moronic religion
TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.