sci.physics.relativity

On Aug 12, 12:19 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On 10 Aug, 17:20, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> > va...@ wrote:
> > > It is well-known that in Newtonian mechanics, a system moving with
> > > constant velocity with respect to an inertial one can be proved also
> > > inertial. Have we a similar assertion valid in Einstein's 1905
> > > Relativity (1905R)?
>
> > Certainly, in his 1905 paper itself. He discussed frames "in which the
> > equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good". Those equations "hold good"
> > only in what we now call inertial frames, so he was discussing the very
> > same frames you yourself point out can be shown to be inertial.
>
> > Einstein did not use the phrase "inertial frame". Today that's what we
> > call these frames.
>
> > Why you are so fixated on Einstein's 1905 paper is unclear. The theory
> > we call "SR" today is the same as initially discussed in that paper,
> > with considerable additional knowledge and understanding added, but no
> > new physical insights [#].
>
> Why don't you just stop lying Roberts Roberts?

Tom Roberts didn't lie or reflect any misunderstanding in that
statement. Stop imitating those throlling hecklers Dono and Eric Gisse
and stay on topic.

Shubee
/relativity/