The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to EinsteinD'Abro, A. (Aram)
Science
The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to Einstein
D'Abro, A. (Aram)
Relativity (Physics); Science -- Methodology
As viewed from all these non-Galilean frames, the laws of mechanics
would appear hopelessly complex. Free bodies would no longer appear
to follow straight lines with constant speeds, but would describe
capricious curves with varying velocities. Newton’s Law of Gravitation
would no longer account for the planetary motions as observed from
these frames, and a study of mechanics would present tremendous
difficulties. In short, all the simple laws observed from Galilean
frames would have to be compounded with the effects of these strange
inertial forces when we wished to formulate laws controlling phenomena
as viewed from the non-Galilean frames.
No surprise need be felt, therefore, when it is said that classical
science selected the Galilean frames as standard frames. All the laws
of mechanics and of physics were referred to them, and this, indeed,
[Pg 108]
was the essence of Copernicus’ discovery. Incidentally, we see that we
are in possession of another definition of a Galilean frame; for we
may say that a Galilean frame is one with respect to which the laws of
classical mechanics (law of inertia, Newton’s law, etc.) hold true.
We may also mention that the very possibility of there being definite
laws of mechanics, such as the law of inertia, is contingent upon
the existence of certain fundamental differences between the various
frames. If all frames were identical, as the complete relativity of
motion would demand, the law of inertia would express nothing at all.
In every case we might make the motion of a body appear anything we
wished by selecting our frame suitably; and if we had no means of
distinguishing one frame from another the straight path of a body
through empty space would convey no physical meaning.
We may now give still another definition of a Galilean frame. It
follows from the law of inertia, according to which free bodies,
when viewed from Galilean frames, will describe straight lines with
constant speeds, that the stars, being presumably free bodies, will
obey this law and, owing to their remoteness, appear to suffer very
slight displacements even in the course of a century This fact led to
a more easily obtainable definition of a Galilean or inertial frame,
namely, a frame with respect to which the stars would appear fixed.
This definition is not meant to supplant the one given previously of a
frame in which no forces of inertia are experienced, for theoretically
both definitions are equivalent. Its sole advantage is that it leads to
a more accurate empirical determination of a Galilean frame and shows
us immediately that our earth does not constitute such a frame, since
the stars appear to circle round the Pole star. As viewed from a true
Galilean frame, our earth would therefore be rotating round the polar
axis every twenty-four hours.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account