Re: [Phys-l] Deep Thoughts: NL1, Inertia, Relativity....

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Since neither 1) nor 2) is phrased as a definition, the question is 
unclear.
Certainly NL1 can be phrased in a manner that is compatible with idea 
that we live in a Reimannian manifol, and the notion of inertia can be 
given meaning.  I do not understand item 3; earth;s surface is not an 
inertial frame, and I don't know the definition of "straight" in the 
context.
				Regards,
					Jack


On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Brian Whatcott wrote:>
> 1)
> If NL1 is construed as indicating that a body continues in a straight
> line when no unbalanced forces operate on the body
> and
> If geodesics on a Reimannian manifold are not straight lines
> then
> Will people grow concerned about compatible definitions for the NL1 they
> teach, and what concepts like Inertia that they need to avoid as Leading
> to conceptual conflicts?
>
>
> 2)
> If the current space time model is hard won
> and difficult to acquire conceptually,
> why would people NOT defend it as the ?truth?,
> and explain that observables that conflict are ?only shadows??
>
> 3)
> If a straight horizontal track is laid out on Earth, where will a
> friction-free ball placed on it, roll to? If the track's straightness is
> checked with a laser beam, will that assure its straightness?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley