 | | Re: Relativity Question —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) Maybe. I don't understand it well enough. Lemme think about the headlights thing.... For someone standing on earth, light is moving away at about 300,000km/sec. Then, say we have a spaceship, moving at half the speed of light relative to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | Just looked this up in Britannica Online. (Search for "time dilation"). Acceleration definitely plays into it. *All* clocks in non-accelerating motion relative to an observer run slow by his/her frame of reference. (Thus potentially causing (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Not quite sure what you mean by "inertial" and "noninertial," since as you point out previously *everyone* is moving. However, within a local inertial frame the Doppler shift of light can be identified to be of a particular character (I don't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Jay Jacinto
|
| | | | | (...) However, some are moving in a certain way as to make it indistuigishable as to who is moving. i.e. me moving away from the universe is equivalent to universe moving away from me. (...) The equations are equivalent no matter what inertia frame (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, thanks for throwing a monkey wrench into it for me. How do the famous de-synchronized clocks fit into this? Obviously one of them slowed down relative to the other. Do we infer that the ground-based clock decelerated sufficiently to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Jay Jacinto
|
| | | | | | (...) observer (...) Acceleration is bad ju-ju, since it isn't accounted for in special relativity. It's only in General Relativity that we get gravity thrown into the mix, and that's taught in grad school. However, from a strictly special (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, that's what I don't get, as well. The terms "inertial" and "noninertial" come from the britannica article, and they mean "non-accelerating motion" and "accelerating motion". But I'm not sure how to tell which is which without an absolute (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) acceleration _is_ absolute - you can measure it, you can tell when your speed is constant. you _cannot_ tell what that speed really is though. not without a point of reference. (...) if the earth started accelerating, everyone and everything (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Relativity Question —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Ahh. Ok, that makes me feel better about things. :) (...) Yes, that makes much sense. (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
