The basic goal, which was the pivot of all our previous thinking, was a special system of relation, that is, the principle of physical relativism of all the same movements. Let us take a closer look at its meaning.
It was always clear that, from the point of view we were conveying to us, all proposals should be considered as a related step only. Coming back to the commonly used image of a fence and a railroad car, we can state the reality of the movement that takes place here in the following two ways, both equally justified:
(a) The cart moves toward the curb,
(b) The fence is moving compared to the cart.
(a) the edge, (b) the cart, serves as a reference point in our statement of proposal that takes place. As long as it is a question of finding or describing the action involved, it is not legally important what reference-body we convey the action to. As mentioned, this is obvious, but it should not be confused with a comprehensive statement called the “relationship policy,” which we have taken as the basis for our investigation.
The goal we have set is not just to emphasize that we can equally choose a trailer or fence as our reference body to define any event (this, too, is obvious). Our goal instead emphasizes the following: When we formulate the natural laws of nature as found in experience, through
(a) a fence as a reference point,
(b) a trailer as a reference,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. mechanical laws or the law of light distribution in a vacuo) have the same effect in both cases. This can also be expressed in the following way: In the physical description of natural processes, none of the reference themes K, a distinct K1 (illuminated "specially marked") compared to another. Unlike the first, this latest statement does not require significant capture; it is not contained in the ideas of “movement” and “body language” and is found in it; only experience can determine its accuracy or inaccuracy.
To date, however, we have not maintained the equality of all references K in the formulation of environmental laws. Our studies were more than the following lines. First, we begin with the assumption that there is a K-body, the structure of which is that the law of Galilee adheres to it: Particles left by themselves and far enough away from all other moving particles. Similarly, in a straight line. By reference to the K (Galilean reference) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all K1 reference themes should be chosen in this sense, and should be exactly the same as K in the laws of nature, as long as they are in the same state of rectilinear movement and without respect for K; all these references are to be considered the themes of Galilee. The appropriateness of the relationship policy was considered only in these reference themes, but not in others (e.g. those with movement of some kind). In this sense, we are talking about a special relationship goal, or a special relationship theory.
Contrary to this we wish to understand the "general relation principle" of the following statement: All the themes of reference K, K1, etc., correspond to the definition of natural phenomena (the formation of normal natural laws), whatever. It may be their state of movement. But before proceeding, it should be noted that this structure should be replaced later with an invisible one, for reasons that will become apparent over time.
Since the introduction of a special relationship goal has been excused, every mind that pursues after doing things normally should feel the temptation to take a step towards a common relationship goal. But the simple and straightforward considerations seem to suggest that, at present either way, there is little hope of success in such an endeavor; Imagine being transported to our old friend by train, traveling at the same price. As long as it moves in the same direction, the rider of the chariot does not feel its movement, and it is for this reason that he can interpret the facts of the case without hesitation as indicating that the chariot is at rest, but the road is moving. Moreover, according to the special order of relation, this definition is also correct from a physical point of view.
When the cart movement is now switched to inconsistent movements, for example with heavy use of the brakes, the rider of the cart encounters a forward jerk with the corresponding force. Delayed movement is reflected in the mechanical behavior of the bodies associated with the person in the train carriage. The behavior of the machine is different from what was previously thought, and for this reason it seems unlikely that the same mechanical rules hold the same as a car that does not change in the same way, such as holding a cart while resting or riding. The same movement. In all cases,6+ it is clear that the law of Galilee does not apply to a chariot that does not change in the same way. Because of this, we feel compelled at this present time to present a kind of absolute reality of reality in an unconventional movement, contrary to the general principle of relation. But in the next one we will see soon that this conclusion cannot be maintained.
You must be logged in to post a comment.