That is simply wrong, and if they use the term “inertial” to mean not rotating then it is THEM that is using terms improperly. It is a FACT that “inertial” simply means not accelerating.
In terms of rotation that means the rotation is inertial if the rotational velocity is not accelerating. A shaft that is rotating at 2,000 RPM is INERTIAL if it is not accelerating, which means it is not increasing or decreasing RPM.
Simple mistakes like that are what makes physicists positions wrong. They are the ones that use standard terms incorrectly. Just like with math and infinite, as in my 1 divided by 3 thread. The division never gets completed, whereas mathematicians pretend that it does. NONSENSE!
If you don’t want to know why physicists say rotating reference frames can’t be inertial - if that’s where your intellectual curiosity stops - then there isn’t a whole lot we have to say to each other.
That is simply BS that inertial means not rotating. It simply isn’t true, and for them to claim that’s how they use it is not in keeping with the standard definition of inertial, which is used in a standard way in many other ways. So they mix and match when it is convenient for them. It simply isn’t true that inertial means not rotating.
That’s not what I said.
Inertial doesn’t MEAN not rotating, it is just a fact that to be inertial also requires a frame to not be rotating. It’s a requirement, not a definition. It’s not the only requirement either, just one of them.
You said:
That is not true!
As I already explained, a shaft can be rotating and be inertial, because it is not accelerating.
Using exclamation marks doesn’t make you more convincing. Do you want to know why physicists say rotating reference frames are non inertial?
I don’t care WHY they use the term incorrectly, just that they are in fact using it incorrectly to suite their needs. They are simply using the term wrong.
This is a thread about relativity. If you don’t care about why relativistic physicists think certain things, there’s a hard limit to how much you can meaningfully contribute to a thread like this. You have to understand why they think what they think if you have any hope of proving them wrong. If you don’t understand, then it’s going to be hard to convince anybody you’re right and they’re wrong. Someone who doesn’t understand relativity certainly can’t convince me relativity is wrong.
You can’t make up some BS theory using terms incorrectly, and then when someone comes along and explains you are wrong and using the terms incorrectly you claim that’s how they are used in the theory. That’s NONSENSE!
I am explaining to you why Relativity is wrong and you are defending it claiming that’s how it’s done in Relativity. In other words, I show you where Relativity is wrong and you claim it’s not wrong in Relativity.
It is simply not true that inertial means not rotating. Any claim that it can’t be rotating to be inertial is simply wrong, and to ignore that fact and continue on with the nonsense is basing a theory on BS.
If all you have to argue your point is exclamation points and caps lock, then I’m just not all that interested.
I get it, you claim if a shaft is rotating it’s not inertial because it is rotating, while at the same time maintaining the position that inertial means not accelerating. You are contradicting yourself. Inertial in rotation means not increasing or decreasing RPM. It does not mean “Zero RPM” it means “not CHANGING RPM.”
Do you want to understand why I, and the rest of physics, treat “inertial” this way? If you understand, you’ll have a better chance of debunking it, right?
You are going to try to explain to me why “zero RPM” means the same as “not changing RPM?” By all means, tell me how zero RPM is the same as not changing RPM.
I’m not going to be corralled into some weird straw man. You seem very irate. I think you should take some deep breaths, have a good walk, and let me know afterwards if you would like to understand.
Rotation is rotation. A shaft that is not rotating specifically means its RPM is ZERO. A shaft that is rotating with some constant RPM means it is not increasing or decreasing RPM, which means “inertial” because it is not changing.
While zero RPM can be inertial if it stays at zero RPM because it is not changing RPM, so too can a shaft spinning 2,000 RPM be inertial because it is not changing RPM. To make the claim that the shaft is only inertial if it is zero RPM is simply not true. It is simply wrong to claim a shaft with a constant RPM of 2,000 is not inertial. It is just simply wrong.
I appreciate that that’s your opinion.
It is not an opinion it is a fact using the standard definitions of the terms.
Okay thanks for telling me what you think.
My thoughts align with the standard definitions. Any other use of the terms is nonsense.
You may one day convince someone, if you could ever bring yourself to ask the question “Why do you think what you think?” That would be interesting.