Re: General Theory of Relativity

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 19:25 12/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Regarding Brian Whatcott's expressed surprise:
> > At 00:48 12/12/98 -0500, J. Epstein wrote:
> > > ....
> > > Maxwell's equations are not invariant to the Galilean transformation
> > > because they explicitly contain a velocity, while Newton's laws are
> > > invariant, because they contain only acceleration.
> > >
> > > J. Epstein
> >
> > This is a most interesting, even contrary position.
> > One often sees the opposing assertion: that Newton has a preferred
> > coordinate system. I would like to see this position debated, if it
> > is not yet completely accepted.
>
> There's is not much to debate here.  Jerry is completely correct.
> Newton's laws of mechanics *are* invariant under Galilean
> transformations.  Newton may have believed in Absolute Space, but his
> equations of mechanics do not betray a preference for any inertial
> frame over another as far as defining a state of absolute rest goes....
>
> David Bowman
> dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu

I am indebted to David's always helpful exposition.
This is evidently confirming the orthodoxy of Jerry's position,
which to my innocent eye completely overlooks Newton's insistance on
absolute space, absolute time, an absolute state of rest, and his many
references to velocity (as translated) starting on page one of the
Principia at Definition II where he states that momentum
('quantity of motion') is doubled with a doubling of mass, and again
 doubled with a doubling of velocity.
This doubling of the velocity component is invariant to transformations
of interest??
I again give thanks for this new insight.






brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK