It is suggested that the mathematically abstract coordinate frames of reference commonly visualized to be centered at the celestial bodies have real counterparts in the shape of well-defined rigid spatial resonant singularities of infinite extension, which accommodate the matter waves from the superimposition of which the body residing at the coordinate origin results. A universally valid inertial reference frame system is proposed. Qualitative explanations are offered for the inertial and gravitational forces, their observed proportionality, and for the occurrence (...) of second-order gravitational effects in the vicinity of massive bodies. The universal redshift is assumed to result from a closure condition of the eigenspaces introduced. (shrink)

We present a fully relational definition of inertial systems based in the No Arbitrariness Principle, that eliminates the need for absolute inertial frames of reference or distinguished reference systems as the ``fixed stars'' in order to formulate Newtonian mechanics. The historical roots of this approach to mechanics are discussed as well. The work is based in part in the constructivist perspective of space advanced by Piaget. We argue that inertial systems admit approximations and that (...) what is of practical use are precisely such approximations. We finally discuss a slightly larger class of systems that we call ``relatively inertial'' which are the fundamental systems in a relational view of mechanics. (shrink)

Eleanor Knox has argued that our concept of spacetime applies to whichever structure plays a certain functional role in the laws. I raise two objections to this inertial functionalism. First, it depends on a prior assumption about which coordinate systems defined in a theory are reference frames, and hence on assumptions about which geometric structures are spatiotemporal. This makes Knox’s account circular. Second, her account is vulnerable to several counterexamples, giving the wrong result when applied to topological quantum (...) field theories and parity- and time-asymmetric theories. I advance an alternative account on which our spacetime concept is a cluster concept. On this view, the notion of metaphysical fundamentality may feature in the cluster, in which case spacetime functionalism may be uninformative in the absence of answers to fundamental metaphysical questions like the substantivalist/relationist debate. (shrink)

Eleanor Knox has argued that our concept of spacetime applies to whichever structure plays a certain functional role in the laws. I raise two objections to this inertial functionalism. First, it depends on a prior assumption about which coordinate systems defined in a theory are reference frames, and hence on assumptions about which geometric structures are spatiotemporal. This makes Knox’s account circular. Second, her account is vulnerable to several counterexamples, giving the wrong result when applied to topological quantum (...) field theories and parity- and time-asymmetric theories. I advance an alternative account on which our spacetime concept is a cluster concept. On this view, the notion of metaphysical fundamentality may feature in the cluster, in which case spacetime functionalism may be uninformative in the absence of answers to fundamental metaphysical questions like the substantivalist/relationist debate. (shrink)

A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the relative motions of bodies. A frame of reference is therefore a purely kinematical device, for the geometrical description of motion without regard to the masses or forces involved. A dynamical account of motion leads to the idea of an “inertial frame,” or a (...) reference frame relative to which motions have distinguished dynamical properties. For that reason an inertial frame has to be understood as a spatial reference frame together with some means of measuring time, so that uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. The laws of Newtonian dynamics provide a simple definition: an inertial frame is a reference-frame with a time-scale, relative to which the motion of a body not subject to forces is always rectilinear and uniform, accelerations are always proportional to and in the direction of applied forces, and applied forces are always met with equal and opposite reactions. It follows that, in an inertial frame, the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion. It also follows that any other frame of reference moving uniformly relative to an inertial frame is also an inertial frame. For example, in Newtonian celestial mechanics, taking the “fixed stars” as a frame of reference, we can determine an inertial frame whose center is the center of mass of the solar system; relative to this frame, every acceleration of every planet can be accounted for as a gravitational interaction with some other planet in accord with Newton 's laws of motion. (shrink)

Le principe d’inertie constitue la loi fondamentale qui a permis à la nouvelle physique du XVIIe siècle de construire son édifice en s’opposant aux explications scolastiques des phénomènes physiques. Tant Descartes que Spinoza ont proposé des démonstrations de cette loi physique en l’intégrant chacun dans son propre système philosophique. Spinoza dans ses Principes de la philosophie de Descartes propose même implicitement une critique de la démonstration cartésienne. Nous analysons cette critique dans la première partie de cet article et dans la (...) suite nous proposons une lecture de la manière dont Spinoza déduit le principe d’inertie dans l’Éthique. Comme ce principe présente quant à son énoncé et quant à sa conceptualisation des affinités avec la théorie du conatus de la troisième partie de l’Éthique, cet article met en valeur la relation de ces deux parties du système et tire de leur confrontation quelques conclusions concernant le statut et la place de la physique dans la philosophie de Spinoza. (shrink)

It is no inconsiderable endeavor to undertake a philosophical analysis of the notions of inertia and absolute space from Newton to Einstein. This is all the more so insofar as Ghins' approach is far from the orthodoxy of the logical empiricists: his claim is that the scientists themselves were seeking to attribute the effects of inertia to real causes, or, in other words, "to specify adequately the system or systems of reference relative to which motions, whether accelerated or not, (...) would give rise or not to such effects". In terms of this causal point of view, he then defines the fundamental question as that of the determination of the inertial or noninertial character of a motion or of a reference system. (shrink)

Classical electron theory with classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation (stochastic electrodynamics) is the classical theory which most closely approximates quantum electrodynamics. Indeed, in inertial frames, there is a general connection between classical field theories with classical zero-point radiation and quantum field theories. However, this connection does not extend to noninertial frames where the time parameter is not a geodesic coordinate. Quantum field theory applies the canonical quantization procedure (depending on the local time coordinate) to a mirror-walled box, and, in general, (...) each non-inertial coordinate frame has its own vacuum state. In particular, there is a distinction between the “Minkowski vacuum” for a box at rest in an inertial frame and a “Rindler vacuum” for an accelerating box which has fixed spatial coordinates in an (accelerating) Rindler frame. In complete contrast, the spectrum of random classical zero-point radiation is based upon symmetry principles of relativistic spacetime; in empty space, the correlation functions depend upon only the geodesic separations (and their coordinate derivatives) between the spacetime points. The behavior of classical zero-point radiation in a noninertial frame is found by tensor transformations and still depends only upon the geodesic separations, now expressed in the non-inertial coordinates. It makes no difference whether a box of classical zero-point radiation is gradually or suddenly set into uniform acceleration; the radiation in the interior retains the same correlation function except for small end-point (Casimir) corrections. Thus in classical theory where zero-point radiation is defined in terms of geodesic separations, there is nothing physically comparable to the quantum distinction between the Minkowski and Rindler vacuum states. It is also noted that relativistic classical systems with internal potential energy must be spatially extended and can not be point systems. The classical analysis gives no grounds for the “heating effects of acceleration through the vacuum” which appear in the literature of quantum field theory. Thus this distinction provides (in principle) an experimental test to distinguish the two theories. (shrink)

It is argued that the `problem of time' in quantum gravity necessitates a refinement of the local inertial structure of the world, demanding a replacement of the usual Minkowski line element by a 4+2n dimensional pseudo-Euclidean line element, with the extra 2n being the number of internal phase space dimensions of the observed system. In the refined structure, the inverse of the Planck time takes over the role of observer-independent conversion factor usually played by the speed of light, which (...) now emerges as an invariant but derivative quantity. In the relativistic theory based on the refined structure, energies and momenta turn out to be invariantly bounded from above, and lengths and durations similarly bounded from below, by their respective Planck scale values. Along the external timelike world-lines, the theory naturally captures the `flow of time' as a genuinely structural attribute of the world. The theory also predicts expected deviations---suppressed quadratically by the Planck energy---from the dispersion relations for free fields in the vacuum. The deviations from the special relativistic Doppler shifts predicted by the theory are also suppressed quadratically by the Planck energy. Nonetheless, in order to estimate the precision required to distinguish the theory from special relativity, an experiment with a binary pulsar emitting TeV range gamma-rays is considered in the context of the predicted deviations from the second-order shifts. (shrink)

In the context of a particular framework of emergent quantum mechanics, it is argued the emergent origin of the inertial mass of a physical system. Two main consequences of the theory are discussed: an emergent interpretation of the law of inertia and a derivation of the energy-time uncertainty relation.

This dissertation elucidates the notion of physical system which opens new conceptual pathways that connect the three realms of physical theory; spacetime, material bodies and their properties, and the laws of nature which govern their evolution. The notion of physical system includes two presuppositions regarding their structure. The first presupposition is a description of isolated systems and their evolution in time, which amounts to a Paradigm of Uniform Motion. The second presupposition describes how parts of a physical system are (...) combined into wholes. This presupposition amounts to a Rule of Composition. Once we make these presuppositions explicit we can derive the spacetime structures and the fundamental equations of motion. "Newtonian" and "relativistic" systems are shown to differ with respect to the paradigm of uniform motion, a difference that leads to the respective structures of Newtonian mechanics and the Special Theory of Relativity. ;The philosophical framework offered in this dissertation provides a new interpretation of the concept of mass, and a new elucidation of the relation between the conservations of mass and momentum. Previous analyses of the concept have claimed that "mass" cannot be defined and broken down to more primitive predicates. The framework offered here, on the other hand, enables the systematic reduction of the concept of mass to motions and the presuppositions we have regarding the nature of physical systems. The new interpretation of mass reveals a surprising connection between mass and inertial reference frames, as they are both shown to be derived, in a similar way, from our definition of physical systems. Mass is by necessity attributed to bodies in virtue of the frame we use to describe their motions. This account also enables us to understand the different conceptual roles of mass and their interconnections. In the context of Newtonian mechanics, the roles of mass as a Quantity of Matter, as the Inertial property of bodies, and as Gravitational mass are shown to be various aspects of a single role the concept has in the new framework offered here. In the context of the Special Theory of Relativity, rest mass and relativistic mass are similarly analyzed as consequences of our presuppositions regarding physical systems. (shrink)

A summary of a philosophical (ontological) system of consistent relativism based on the postulate of relativity of existence of all things in existence is proposed. Absolutely everything exists, but, at the same time, no existence is absolute. Anything is possible, but only those entities we interact with one way or another exist for us, i.e., reality is interaction, “I interact—hence, I exist”. For all of us, information, or perceptible heterogeneities, is real. There exists an infinity of different realities. The different (...) levels of entities’ existence, in particular, of the Life and the Mind, should be taken into consideration. The existence of live systems in relation to non-living entities is undetermined, thus the alive can appear in its specifically live properties only through interaction with living things: there’s no difference between alive and dead for the stones. An even greater range of levels of existence can be brought about through interaction—that is the core idea of Gödel’s theorem. As a result, the range of forms of existence tends towards infinity—the evolution of matter through the Overmind will bring us up to God. This ontological position assumes a series of non-trivial physical conclusions, which can be tested experimentally, including the use of mathematical models. Rotation could be used to increase inertial mass and decrease gravitational mass, slowing down time. A more generalized mathematical model of the physical world, including a universal operator of the co-existence of objects, can be developed. In this model of Reality, superluminal speeds (without interaction) are possible and the Universe is open. (shrink)

In this work, a virtual submerged floating operational system based on parallel and serial robotic platforms is proposed. The primary aim behind its development lies in carrying out simulated underwater manipulation experiments in an easier and safer way. This VSFOS is consisted of a six-degree-of-freedom parallel platform, an ABB serial manipulator, an inertial sensor, and a real-time industrial computer. The 6-DOF platform is used to simulate the movement of an underwater vehicle, whose attitude is measured by the inertial (...) sensor. The ABB manipulator, controlled by the real-time industrial computer, works as an operational tool to perform underwater manipulation tasks. In the control system architecture, software is developed to receive the data collected by the inertial sensor, to communicate and send instructions. Furthermore, the real-time status of the manipulator is displayed in this software. To validate the proposed system, two experiments have been conducted to test its performance. In the first experiment, the test is carried out to check the communication function of VSFOS, while in the second one, the manipulator is intended to follow the movement of the parallel platform and perform simulated operational task in the space. The obtained results from these two experiments show clearly the effectiveness and the performance of the proposed VSFOS. (shrink)

The paper discusses some properties of system descriptions in action language – a recent extension of action language by defined fluents. We give a sufficient condition guaranteeing that states of an system description are fully determined by statics and inertial fluents. In system descriptions satisfying this condition, defined fluents simply facilitate the description of dynamic domains; they are not essential and can be eliminated. We use our sufficient condition to identify a common core of action languages and. This is (...) an expansion of the work of, who identified a common core of languages and. The results presented in this paper are based on the close relationship between action languages and the theory of logic programs under the answer set semantics. (shrink)

In the history of Newtonian Mechanics physicists and astronomers did not rely on so-called inertial frames, indeed they were not able to identify such frames. So the usual neo-Newtonian formalism of Newtonian Mechanics contains some superfluous components. In the present paper I will formulate a formal system for classical particle mechanics in Leibnizian space-time, where a relation, a counterpart of the second law of motion, between force on bodies and derivative of their momentum will be defined relative to every, (...) inertial or not, reference frame. And I will present a view that in the research process under Newtonian mechanics the accumulation of those models of the relation that satisfied some realistic conditions determined an additional structure of non-rotating frames to Leibnizian space-time. (shrink)

The measure of the chiral system inertia has been suggested as a reciprocal value of degree of chirality. Three main laws of conservation, evolution, and interaction of chiral systems in the inertial space are formulated. Some of the consequences concerning the interaction of the chiral elements could be used to estimate the degree of chirality of complex chiral systems.

In a previous work, we have shown that the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment in vacuum is deeply connected with the notion of time. The same is true for the postulate of constancy of the two-way speed of light in vacuum in all frames independently of the state of motion of the emitting body. The argumentation formerly given is very general and has to be true not only within Special Relativity and its “equivalence” of all inertial frames, but (...) as well as in Lorentz-Poincaré scenario of a preferred reference frame. This paper is the second of a trilogy intending to revisit the foundations of Special Relativity, and addresses the question of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and of the differences and similarities between both scenarios. Although they manifestly differ in philosophy, it is debated why and how the assumption of a “special system of reference experimentally inaccessible” is indeed compatible with Einstein’s Special Relativity, as beautifully outlined and discussed by Bell [Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988)]. This rather trivial statement is still astonishing nowadays to a big majority of scientists. The purpose of this work is to bring such assertion into perspective, widening the somewhat narrow view of Special Relativity often presented in textbooks and scientific papers. (shrink)

From the perspective of the system of systems development, system-level functional testing is required for designing subsystems. This study utilizes modeling and simulation techniques to analyze the operational behaviors of the subsystems and confirm data communication between them. The targeted system in the study is a naval combat system, which is a typical type of defense cyber-physical system. Three types of models were designed for the simulation testing of the NCS: a combat-management model for simulating the overall computational activities, (...) physical models to confirm the intrasubsystem behaviors, and data integration models to test the intersubsystem communications. These models are realized with the Model-View-ViewModel design pattern, which strongly facilitates graphical user interfaces being decoupled from model logic and data. We consider underwater combat scenarios as an application. Six significant physical subsystems within the NCS are simulated and tested: a ship-steering system, an inertial navigation system, a global navigation satellite system, a periscope, sonar systems, and a plotting board. We expect that the proposed work will play a principal role when analyzing the behaviors and communications of defense CPSs and providing an environment for functional testing as a digital twin. (shrink)

In his original paper of 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", Einstein described a procedure for synchronizing distant clocks at rest in any inertial system K. Clocks thus synchronized may be said to be in standard signal synchrony in K. It has often been claimed that there are no logical or physical reasons for preferring standard signal synchronizations to any of a range of possible non-standard ones. In this paper, the range of consistent non-standard signal synchronizations, first for (...) any one inertial system, and second for any set of such systems, is investigated, and it is shown that the requirement of consistency leaves much less room for choice than is commonly supposed. Nevertheless consistent non-standard signal synchronizations appear to be possible. However, it is also shown that good physical reasons for preferring standard signal synchronizations exist, if the Special Theory of Relativity yields correct predictions. The thesis of the conventionality of distant simultaneity espoused particularly by Reichenbach and Grunbaum is thus either trivialized or refuted. (shrink)

In his general theory of relativity Einstein sought to generalize the special-relativistic equivalence of inertial frames to a principle according to which all frames of reference are equivalent. He claimed to have achieved this aim through the general covariance of the equations of GR. There is broad consensus among philosophers of relativity that Einstein was mistaken in this. That equations can be made to look the same in different frames certainly does not imply in general that such frames are (...) physically equivalent. We shall argue, however, that Einstein's position is tenable. The equivalence of arbitrary frames in GR should not be equated with relativity of arbitrary motion, though. There certainly are observable differences between reference frames in GR. The core of our defense of Einstein's position will be to argue that such differences should be seen as fact-like rather than law-like in GR. By contrast, in classical mechanics and in special relativity the differences between inertial systems and accelerated systems have a law-like status. The fact-like character of the differences between frames in GR justifies regarding them as equivalent in the same sense as inertial frames in SR. (shrink)

In his general theory of relativity (GR) Einstein sought to generalize the special-relativistic equivalence of inertial frames to a principle according to which all frames of reference are equivalent. He claimed to have achieved this aim through the general covariance of the equations of GR. There is broad consensus among philosophers of relativity that Einstein was mistaken in this. That equations can be made to look the same in different frames certainly does not imply in general that such frames (...) are physically equivalent. We shall argue, however, that Einstein's position is tenable. The equivalence of arbitrary frames in GR should not be equated with relativity of arbitrary motion, though. There certainly are observable differences between reference frames in GR (differences in the way particles move and fields evolve). The core of our defense of Einstein's position will be to argue that such differences should be seen as fact-like rather than law-like in GR. By contrast, in classical mechanics and in special relativity (SR) the differences between inertial systems and accelerated systems have a law-like status. The fact-like character of the differences between frames in GR justifies regarding them as equivalent in the same sense as inertial frames in SR. (shrink)

Reichenbach, Grünbaum, and others have argued that special relativity is based on arbitrary conventions concerning clock synchronizations. Here we present a mathematical framework which shows that this conventionality is almost equivalent to the arbitrariness in the choice of coordinates in an inertial system. Since preferred systems of coordinates can uniquely be defined by means of the Lorentz invariance of physical laws irrespective of the properties of light signals, a special clock synchronization—Einstein's standard synchrony—is selected by this principle. No (...) further restrictions conerning light signal synchronization, as proposed, e.g., by Ellis and Bowman, are required in order to refute conventionalism in special relativity. (shrink)

After discussing in the first five sections the meaning and the difficulties of the principle of relativity we present a new sel of spacetime transformations between inertial systems (“inertial” transformations), based on three assumptions: (1) The two-way velocity of light is c in all inertial systems and in all directions; (2) Time dilation effects take place with the usual relativistic factor; (3) Clocks are synchronized in the way chosen by nature itself, e.g., in the Sagnac (...) effect. We show that our new transformation laws can explain the available experimental evidence in spite of the implied noninvariance of the one-way velocity of light. (shrink)

ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a diagnostic model of multi-kinematic parameters for patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).MethodIn this cross-sectional study, 94 older adults were included (33 cognitively normal, CN; and 61 aMCI). We conducted neuropsychological battery tests, such as global cognition and cognitive domains, and collected gait parameters by an inertial-sensor gait analysis system. Multivariable regression models were used to identify the potential diagnostic variables for aMCI. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were applied to assess the diagnostic (...) accuracy of kinematic parameters in discriminating aMCI from healthy subjects.ResultsMultivariable regression showed that multi-kinematic parameters were the potential diagnostic variables for aMCI. The multi-kinematic parameter model, developed using Timed Up and Go (TUG) time, stride length, toe-off/heel stride angles, one-leg standing (OLS) time, and braking force, showed areas under ROC (AUC), 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.905–0.857]; sensitivity, 0.90; and specificity, 0.91. In contrast, a single kinematic parameter’s sensitivity was 0.26–0.95 and specificity was 0.21–0.90. Notably, the separating capacity of multi-kinematic parameters was highly similar to Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; AUC: 0.96 vs. 0.95). Compared to cognitive domain tests, the separating ability was comparable to Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) and Boston Naming Test (BNT; AUC: 0.96 vs. 0.97; AUC: 0.96 vs. 0.94).ConclusionWe developed one diagnostic model of multi-kinematic parameters for patients with aMCI in Foshan. (shrink)

The energy-momentum relationship is obtained in para-Lorentzian dynamics. It is shown that the well-known correspondence rule for the operators energy and momentum holds in any inertial system if it is assumed to hold in the preferred reference frame. The new Dirac equation is obtained. Some qualitative features of the new theory are given; one of then is the spontaneous appearance of conserved-vector and nonconserved-axial weak currents. Finally one evaluates the convenience of further developments of the present theory in view (...) of the excellent agreement of QED with experiment. (shrink)

Protophysics and Special Theory of Relativity. First, a proposal for a constructive foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity by M. Buth is criticized and confronted with an alternative proposal by the author. The main idea is to solve the problem of transforming coordinates between inertial systems in terms of the General Theory of Measurement. Regarding transformations of co-ordinates as transformations of thecorresponding “functions of measurement” these functions have to meet two demands. 1. To identify measured values which (...) are related to different inertial systems and measuring procedures as the same magnitude, the ratio scale of length and duration has to be defined with respect to the whole class of inertial systems. 2. Using the concept of a certain physical magnitude, propositions about measuring devices are made which are invariant with respect to measuring procedures. As aconsequence every transformation between functions of measurement has to be an equivalence relation. The first demand leads to linearity, the second one reduces the set of permissible transformations between inertial systems to the alternative of Galilei- and Lorentz-transformation. The (im)possibility of putting an absolute simultaneity into practice decides between these transformations. (shrink)

I describe a constructive foundation for quantum mechanics, based on the discreteness of the degrees of freedom of quantum objects and on the Principle of Relativity. Taking Einstein’s historical construction of Special Relativity as a model, the construction is carried out in close contact with a simple quantum mechanical Gedanken experiment. This leads to the standard axioms of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical description is identified as a mathematical tool that allows describing objects, whose degree of freedom in space–time has (...) a discrete spectrum, relative to classical observers in space–time. This description is covariant with respect to coordinate transformations and meets the requirement that the spectrum is the same in every inertial system. The construction gives detailed answers to controversial questions, such as the measurement problem, the informational content of the wave function, and the completeness of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

A clock-transport method of synchronization employing proper time is described that yields in any given inertial system the same result as slow transport, but that imposes no limit on transport proper speed. It is argued that because the method involves only the empirically validated kinematic invariant proper time, on which all observers must agree, there exists an option to synchronize clocks in such a way that thesimultaneity of spatially separated events is agreed upon by all observers, hence is “absolute.” (...) Such agreement refers only to phase equality of members (present at the events judged simultaneous) of comoving clock sets, not to clock rates or clock phase numerical values in different inertial systems. The demonstration employs only the on-worldline assertions of Einstein's kinematics. It thus depends on a limited subset of his ideas and allows a different identification of the spacelike invariant. (shrink)

The experimental evidence for electromagnetic signals propagating with superluminal group velocity is recalled. Transformations of space and time depending on a synchronization parameter, e1, indicate the existence of a privileged inertial system. The Lorentz transformations are obtained for a particular e1≠0. No standard experiment on relativity depends on e1, but if accelerations are considered only e1=0 remains possible. The causal paradox generated by superluminal signals (SLS) in the theory of relativity does not exist in the theory with e1=0. The (...) irrelevance of SLS for the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox is pointed out. (shrink)

Frank Jackson and Robert Pargetter propose a method for synchronizing clocks at rest at distant points of an inertial system in Euclidean space, which, they claim, does not depend on Einstein's signalling method and provides a basis for denying the conventionality of distant simultaneity. I am afraid, however, that the new method presupposes that the simultaneity of distant events relatively to the chosen inertial system has been already determined by Einstein's or some other method. Jackson and Pargetter describe (...) their method as follows: Let UA, UB be clocks at A, B, respectively. Let XY be an axis perpendicular to AB, passing through C, the midpoint of AB. Take a rigid straight rod A′B′ with midpoint C′ and length equal to the length AB. Move A′B′ with uniform velocity such that C′ travels along XY towards C, and A′B′ is perpendicular to XY ; then if the reading … on UA just when A′ coincides with A is the same as the reading … on UB just when B′ coincides with B, clocks UA and UB will be synchronous.. (shrink)

We produce language forms via their relations in coordinate systems: languages. That is virtual language relativity. Languages are related to phenomena and work in the real life of communities. That is real language relativity. We use languages via symbolic behaviors, living in human communities. Relativism collapses at the level of successful exchange of experience between humans belonging to distant cultures. Relativism is a stance of not recognizing the real relatedness of all languages to one and the same human form (...) and world. Absolutism (Universalism) is a stance of not recognizing relativity as definiteness, that is, the virtual interrelatedness of all languages. Languages are shaped by human life processes. We follow the path from “local languages,” which are analogous to ‘inertial systems’, (this represents ‘virtual relativity,’ which is analogous to special relativity in physics) to living people talking about one shared sensual world (this represents ‘real relativity’). (shrink)

The Lorentz-formulae are deduced from three factual statements the physical meaning of which is explained in terms of operations with clocks, light-signals and measuring rods. These statements are: (1) The time-length of a process is invariant. (2) The velocity of light is the same in all inertial systems. (3) The velocity of light is independent of the source. It is also shown that these statements can be deduced from the Lorentz-formulae. They are the physical content of the latter. (...) The principle of relativity and the light-principle together, however, contain more physical meaning than the Lorentz-formulae. Operational definitions are given for all relevant concepts. (shrink)

There will be more philosophy than physics in this paper for I make no pretentions to an expert knowledge of physics. Categories are, however, in my line; and here I may have some insight.In the theory of relativity much depends upon the conception of the velocity of light in empty space. Such is the expression Einstein employs. If this velocity is to be a quantity independent of the choice of the inertial system to which it is referred, no absolute (...) meaning can be assigned to the conception of the simultaneity of events that occur at points separated by a distance in space. Rather a special time must be allocated to every inertial system. “It is in consequence of this that space and time are welded together into a uniform four-dimensional continuum.” Thus succinctly does Einstein express the c hoice in his article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. (shrink)

This paper considers questions of continuity and change in education from the perspective of complexity theory, introducing the field to educationists who might not be familiar with it. Given a significant degree of complexity in a particular environment , new properties and behaviours, which are not necessarily contained in the essence of the constituent elements or able to be predicted from a knowledge of initial conditions, will emerge. These concepts of emergent phenomena from a critical mass, associated with notions of (...) lock‐in, path dependence, and inertial momentum, suggest that it is in the dynamic interactions and adaptive orientation of a system that new phenomena, new properties and behaviours, emerge. The focus thus shifts from a concern with decontextualised and universalised essence to contextualised and contingent complex wholes. This is where complexity theory seeks the levers of history. The paper posits the notion of inertial momentum as the conceptual link between the principle of emergent phenomena as developed principally in the natural sciences and the notion of socio‐historical change in human society. It is argued that educational and institutional change is less a consequence of effecting change in one particular factor or variable, and more a case of generating momentum in a new direction by attention to as many factors as possible. Complexity theory suggests, in other words, that what it might take to change a school's inertial momentum from an ethos of failure is massive and sustained intervention at every possible level until the phenomenon of learning excellence emerges from this new set of interactions among these new factors, and sustains itself autocatalytically. The paper concludes with a summary consideration of the conditions that contribute to the emergence of new properties and behaviours in a system. (shrink)

Einstein, in his “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”, gave a physical (operational) meaning to “time” of a remote event in describing “motion” by introducing the concept of “synchronous stationary clocks located at different places”. But with regard to “place” in describing motion, he assumed without analysis the concept of a system of co-ordinates.In the present paper, we propose a way of giving physical (operational) meaning to the concepts of “place” and “co-ordinate system”, and show how the observer can define both the (...) place and time of a remote event. Following Einstein, we consider another system “in uniform motion of translation relatively to the former”. Without assuming “the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time”, we show that the definitions of space and time in the two systems are linearly related. We deduce some novel consequences of our approach regarding faster-than-light observers and particles, “one-way” and “two-way” velocities of light, symmetry, the “group property” of inertial reference frames, length contraction and time dilatation, and the “twin paradox”. Finally, we point out a flaw in Einstein’s argument in the “Electrodynamical Part” of his paper and show that the Lorentz force formula and Einstein’s formula for transformation of field quantities are mutually consistent. We show that for faster-than-light bodies, a simple modification of Planck’s formula for mass suffices. (Except for the reference to Planck’s formula, we restrict ourselves to Physics of 1905.). (shrink)

The strap-down inertial navigation system is a commonly used sensor for autonomous underground navigation, which can be used for shearer positioning under a coal mine. During the process of initial alignment, inaccurate or time-varying noise covariance matrices will significantly degrade the accuracy of the initial alignment of the shearer. To overcome the performance degradation of the existing initial alignment algorithm under complex underground environment, a novel adaptive filtering algorithm is proposed by the integration of the strong tracking Kalman filter (...) and the sequential filter for the initial alignment of the shearer with complex underground environment. Compared with the traditional multiple fading factor strong tracking Kalman filter method, the proposed MSTSKF algorithm integrates the advantage of strong tracking Kalman filter and sequential filter, and multiple fading factor and forgetting factor for east and north velocity measurement are designed in the algorithm, respectively, which can effectively weaken the coupling relationship between the different states and increase strong robustness against process uncertainties. The simulation and experiment results show that the proposed MSTSKF method has better initial alignment accuracy and robustness than existing strong tracking Kalman filter algorithm. (shrink)

Sophists’ apologia. -/- Sophists were the first paid teachers ever. These ancient Greek enlighteners taught wisdom. Protagoras, Antiphon, Prodicus, Hippias, Lykophron are most famous ones. Sophists views and concerns made a unified encyclopedic system aimed at teaching common wisdom, virtue, management and public speaking. Of the contemporary “enlighters”, Deil Carnegy’s educational work seems to be the most similar to sophism. Sophists were the first intellectuals – their trade was to sell knowledge. They introduced a new type of teacher-student relationship – (...) the mutually beneficial communication on equal terms. They taught pupils how to think independently and how to persuade others, which was inseparably connected with the rise of democracy in the most advanced Greek polices. Sophists were the first to proclaim that all people are naturally equal. They put forward the idea of natural rights and social contract, working out the fundamentals of the present-day law. In addition, they developed the basics of philology, psychology, logic, and gave a scientific explanation to the origins of religions. They embodied definite positive ideals of their epoch. Sophistry flourished in the second half of the Vth through he first third of the IVth centuries B. C. The period coincides with the heyday of the entire Greek history – the so called Greek Miracle epoch. Sophists expressed some present-day concepts of Ancient Greek ideology and mentality, characteristic of its Golden Age times. The Ancient Athens of the times of Periclus were similar to the Florence of Renaissance as to the type of social structure. That is why (?) the art of eloquence (public speaking) was highly respected in Florence. The two cities had a lot of features of the present-day capitalist society, which was due to their role as the main centres of industry of their “worlds-economies”. During the subsequent Hellenic period, the Old Order was restored, based on the feudal rent recipients’ rule. The degradation of society resulted in the decline of sophistry. Sophistry represents the highest point in the evolution of Greek philosophy. It is also the most prominent school as to the novelty of its ideas. That was owing to the common propensity for innovation typical of Periclus’ Golden Age, which in its turn resulted from the establishment of the individualistic and rationalistic thinking similar to present-day mentality. Among other aspects, close attention was paid to ethnic issues; some humanistic ideas such as Master and Servant ethics and Enlightment as the primary condition of man’s freedom, received scientific grounding. The genre of philosophical dialogue was developed, as well as the rationalistic scientific gnoceology, aimed at consistently opposing any religion. Dialectics, the most outstanding achievement of the Antiquity, was also worked out by the sophists. Zeno of Helleas was one of the sophists. Democrites’ ideas were, too, quite close to dialectics. Socrates’ contemporaries regarded him ironically, as shown, for example, in the Aristophanes’ comedy “Clouds”. Nevertheless, this scholar can still be referred to as a sophist, although of somewhat weird personality. Socrates’ popularity, which came later, should be attributed to the fact that he was the first philosopher ever to have been sentenced and executed by law, rather than to any valuable scientific contributions. Sophistry as such, rather than Socrates, marks the line between pre-Socratic and post- Socratic schools. Plato, with the exception of his latest works, is considered to belong to the same philosophical school. Specifically, there are valid reasons to believe that he was paid fees by his disciples. In Plato’s Dialogues, all points of view will be proven and then disproved, so that an integral philosophical system is hard to observe. Plato’s “Idealism” is but one of the many possible theories. His ideal philosophy is a high-minded argument of wise men. As late as towards the end of his life, Plato betrayed the ideals of sophistry, turning into the world’s first proponent of totalitarianism. Sophistry is Greek classical literature. Later on, philosophy, as well as the entire Greek civilization, started to fall into decline. Over 500 subsequent years, Hellenistic-Roman scholars never came up with anything novel. The entire process of antique philosophical evolution can be subdivided into the following six stages: Phoenician (IX–VIIth centuries B. C.), archaic (VIth – the first half of IVth century B. C., classic (the epoch of sophistry: the second half of the Vth through the first decades of the IIIrd centuries B. C.), late antique (middle of the IIIrd – first decades of the VI th centuries B.C.) The fact that early in the VIth century B. C. sophistry was rejected in Athens, has a lot to do with the consequences of their defeat in Peloponnesian war, a social catastrophe. Ever since, the prevalent part of the criticism of sophistry is a criticism of sophists’ immoral ways of life and personalities, rather than the essentials of their philosophy. For instance, Aristotle’s criticism primarily concerns their pragmatism and tendency to make a profit out of teaching. However, Aristotle himself taught his disciples along similar lines, showing them how to “be able to prove both opposites”. It was Aristotle who summed up sophists’ century-long elaborations. The traditional modern interpretation of sophists as shown in Plato’s dialogues appears to be groundless. The truth of the matter is that Plato regards sophists as more serious philosophers than Socrates was. It becomes especially clear in the dialogue titled “Protagoras”, which shows the latter as gaining an undoubted victory over Socrates. Generally speaking, Plato’s works never regard sophists as weak or worthless opponents. A common opinion as to the essence of sophists’, in particular, Protagoras’s philosophy, has hitherto not been worked out. Many researchers renounce the very existence of any specific philosophical position in sophistry. The term “relativism” itself now has a bad name. However, it should be borne in mind that Protagoras doctrine emerged as a result of an attempt to get out of the ontological dead-end to which the entire Greek natural philosophy had come. To this purpose, he employed Anaxagoras’s idea about everything comprising everything, whereupon he built his physical-ontological theory, and Zeno of Helleas’s concept that all objects are such and different at the same time in the same respect. According to Protagoras’s philosophy, every object does not only seem, but is different from every other object, including human beings. Therefore, every person is his or her own measure of all other entities. The objective reality is the Ego’s relations with the outer world. Every object’s essence is defined through its interaction with ourselves. Nothing remains stagnant – every existence already contains non-existence, and vice-versa. However, the relativity of being is not to be regarded as absolute. That means, that relatively stable and therefore relatively cognizable entities do exist, among them the words we say. Doubt is not considered absolute by relativists either, which differentiates them from skeptics and agnostics. They dare to believe. Uncertainty is Godly – here, Protagoras becomes very close to the concept of apathetic theology. Gorgius shared Protagoras’s views and tried to prove them applying the same method as Zeno applied when upholding Parmenidis’s philosophy. He argued that if one accepts the opposite point of view and agrees that nothing can exist and not exist at the same time, one is bound to come to an the absurd conclusion that nothing is cognizable and nothing exists. To prove that there is a universal contradiction within the Existence itself, Protagoras and his followers in their turn put forward a number of special logical arguments, called rules of contraries, or sophisms. The most well-known of them is the Euathle’s sophism, which proves that an object can be such and different at the same time in the same respect. Generally speaking, all relationships of any entity are extraneous. The idea that all entities, including concepts, exist and do not exist at the same time, was also accepted by Plato. It should be stressed, that Plato’s philosophy as a whole is relativists’ greatest achievement. In his dispute against relativism, Aristotle put forward the main concepts of his ontology: the existence falls into the existence in possibility and the existence in reality, or substance and accidence – the ever changing “sublunary” world and the stable world of divine heavenly bodies. This division made his system self-contradictory to the point of absurd. Aristotle quite realized, that the direct disproof of relativism is hardly possible, which fact makes his criticism a mere tautology. It is very indicative in this respect that materialists, idealists and even skeptical agnostics applied the same arguments do disprove relativism. That demonstrates that the inner contradiction between any forms of “absolutism” and relativism is the most fundamental philosophical problem. Relativist ideas were repeatedly renewed throughout history, provided the social conditions were favourable. In variations, the concepts were advanced by Tzuan Tsi and ancient Chinese sophists, apostle Paul, Nicolas of Cusa, Galileo, Rene Descartes, G. Berkley, D. Hume, Ch. S. Pierce, E. Mach, A. Bogdanov, F. de Saussure, N. Bore, P. Feuerabend, U. Quain and others. However, no consistent relativist ontological system was developed after Protagoras. Meanwhile, a valid relativist theory could provide a clue to a fuller and more adequate general physical concept of the world, and to a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics. -/- Relativism as an ontological system of beliefs. -/- The relativist principle of relativity of all that exists is fundamental for the entire system of philosophy. Absolutely everything exists, but, at the same time, no existence is absolute. Anything is possible, but those entities only exist for us with which we interact this way or another, i. e., reality is interaction, “I interact – hence, I exist”. However, an overly close relationship between entities leads to non-existence – in other words, there is a certain existential optimum. For all of us, information, or perceptible heterogeneities, is real. Each of us is the center of a definite system of interactions with the world. If God is an endless Possibility, then the World is but the man’s dialogue with God. However, the ties that bind us with the world are of some definite kind, which predetermines our reality. The principle of relativity constrains itself, as any relativity is relative. On the one hand, that calls forth the Evil – caused by our own weakness. On the other hand, it makes our world relatively stable and cognizable. Generally speaking, the world is what we are. Everybody has an own Universe, but since people are fairly similar, our universes can be regarded as one Universe with common laws and regulations. It is possible for us to change the degree of objects’ existence in relation to ourselves and one another. It is equally important, though, to remain ourselves (keep following our “warrior’s path”). Since everything exists and no existence is absolute, the process of cognition should involve a criticism of everything but never a complete rebuttal of anything. The criterion of verity for any theory then is in its capacity to build itself upon a bigger number of diverse statements than in any other theory. Theoretically, all philosophies should ideally be complementary. The question of what in fact happened is meaningless unless we specify the “we”, the “where” and the “when”. The past can only exist as part of the present. When we change, our past undergoes corresponding qualitative objective changes, all of which are irreversible. The contemporary physics regards all objects of the Universe as existing for one another, which results in absurd conclusions. In fact, only what we interact with, exists. The so called “speed of light in vacuum” c is the maximum speed of direct interaction and direct exchange of signals. Specifically, at the oncoming speed c with a significant blue parallax the gamma-quantum is unable to interact with the matter. When this speed is reached, the gravitational mass of objects in relation to one another becomes equal to zero (imaginary), whereas their inertial mass equals infinity. Further acceleration will bring us into an entirely different Universe. That means that the Universe is an open system, which fact destroys all present-day cosmological models. Anything is possible in this world. Our reality is magic. Every bit of space contains a potentially limitless number of bits of other, however virtual, universes, as well as an infinite number of particles, which are still virtual for us (as postulated by quantum mechanics). In other words, there exists an infinity of different realities. With all the above in mind, the different levels of entities’ existence, in particular, of Life and Reason, should be taken into consideration. For example, to which extent a live system exists in relation to the inanimate forms of being is very indefinite, as what life is has to be determined by living creatures. An even greater compass of levels of existence can be brought about through interaction – that is the core idea of Godel’s theorem. As a result, the range of forms of existence tends towards infinity – the evolution of matter through super-intelligence will bring us up to God’s heights. A more generalized mathematical model of the physical world, including a universal operator of the co-existence of objects, can be developed based on the above considerations. The bonds between objects become weaker owing to 1) a high speed, 2) acceleration, 3) rotation, 4) strong gravity, 5) strong fields of other kinds, 6) the difference of levels of existence , 7) phase shifts. Yet, there always is an existential optimum. Such mathematical model is to operate certain non-transitive algebras. Relativist ontology assumes that the notion of “temperature” is relative, thus making it possible to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In its turn, that will allow for phase shifts. A perpetual motion machine of the second type will become a reality. Rotation could presumably be used to increase inertial and decrease gravitational mass, slowing down the time. An experimental research could shed light on the mentioned effects. (shrink)

Trois sujets de philosophie naturelle, fort controversés à l’époque où Descartes élabore sa physique sont particulièrement présents dans les Principes de la philosophie de Descartes, le principe de relativité des mouvements des corps matériels, la nature que l’on nommera plus tard vectorielle de la grandeur, qui caractérise l’état de mouvement d’un corps et que Descartes contribue à constituer par la notion de determinatio et l’objection parallactique contre l’héliocentrisme. On examine ici comment l’actualité du débat scientifique permet de comprendre l’argumentation cartésienne (...) et on insiste sur le caractère polémique de ce traité. On peut notamment relever que les théories galiléennes pèsent d’un grand poids dans la modification des conceptions cartésiennes du mouvement et que les arguments, alors les plus récents, avancés en astronomie soutiennent la mise au point du système du monde cartésien. Il s’agit de mettre l’histoire des sciences au service d’une meilleure intelligence de la somme philosophique cartésienne.Three very controversial points in natural philosophy playan important role in the cartesian Principes de la philosophie in which Descartes is working his Physic .There are the Relativity principle for the moving bodies, the nature of magnitude which later shall be named vectorial and the parallactic objection against heliocentric system. In this paper, it is discussed of how the scientific actuality is important for one interested in understanding the cartesian natural philosophy. It is insisted on the controversial nature of the cartesian treatise : the galilean theories have a strong influence on the modifications operated by Descartes about bodies’ movement ; the most performing results in astronomy in this period strenght the cartesian way to imagine a new an coherent system of the world. The main point of this paper consists in using the history of sciences in order to better understand the philosophic summa of Descartes. (shrink)

We discuss what we take to be three possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity, relating to: the interpretation of the weak equivalence principle and the relationship between gravity and inertia; the connection between gravitational redshift results and spacetime curvature; and the Einstein equivalence principle and the ability to ``transform away" gravity in local inertial coordinate systems.

Using as a starting point recent and apparently incompatible conclusions by Saunders and Knox, I revisit the question of the correct spacetime setting for Newtonian physics. I argue that understood correctly, these two versions of Newtonian physics make the same claims both about the background geometry required to define the theory, and about the inertial structure of the theory. In doing so I illustrate and explore in detail the view—espoused by Knox, and also by Brown —that inertial structure (...) is defined by the dynamics governing subsystems of a larger system. This clarifies some interesting features of Newtonian physics, notably the distinction between using the theory to model subsystems of a larger whole and using it to model complete universes, and the scale-relativity of spacetime structure. _1_ Introduction _2_ Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Spacetime _3_ Vector Relationism and Maxwellian Spacetime _4_ Recovering the Galilei Group: Dynamics of Subsystems _5_ Knox on Inertial Structure _6_ Connections on Maxwellian Spacetime _7_ Knox on Newtonian Gravity _8_ Vector Relationism and Newton–Cartan Theory _9_ Inertial Structure in Newton–Cartan Gravity _10_ Reconciling Knox and Saunders _11_ Conclusions. (shrink)

In the transition to Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity (SR), certain concepts that had previously been thought to be univocal or absolute properties of systems turn out not to be. For instance, mass bifurcates into (i) the relativistically invariant proper mass m0, and (ii) the mass relative to an inertial frame in which it is moving at a speed v = βc, its relative mass m, whose quantity is a factor γ = (1 – β2) -1/2 times the (...) proper mass, m = γm0. (shrink)