Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Just talking about "frames" confuses the problem.  You need to think of the physics.  The physics may involve accelerated objects, whether in an inertial or non-inertial coordinate system.  By suitable coordinate transformations you can express the physics in an inertial frame and you can

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

A good exposition.  Thanks, Jesse, I need to read some of those references. Brent On 11/19/2022 11:59 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: I'm no expert on the mathematical details, but from what I've read, my understanding is that while the "general covariance" (also called 'diffeomorphism invariance') of

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

I see. TY. Let's assume AE was aware of what you write after he developed SR. That is, assume he knew that the laws of physics are NOT invariant when one or more frames are non-inertial. What prompted him to developed a theory, GR, based on tensors where the laws of physics* are *invariant

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Are you claiming that we can have two coordinate systems, one or both non-inertial, and a transformation from one to another such that the laws of physics will have the same form under this transformation? Is so, what allows us to say "SR can be applied to non-inertial frames"? What has SR to

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

If vacuum energy has some positive value x in the context of general relativity, and the casimir effect can have a region go below vacuum energy by more than x, from what I understand it should then qualify as negative energy in a relativistic context. I once asked about this on an online physics

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On 11/18/2022 2:19 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:51 PM Brent Meeker wrote: /> That's an energy density lower than the surrounding vacuum. The conducting plates exclude longer wavelengths relative to their spacing.  This is not the same as negative energy in the

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:51 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > That's an energy density lower than the surrounding vacuum. The > conducting plates exclude longer wavelengths relative to their spacing. > This is not the same as negative energy in the vacuum.* > If you assume the surrounding vacuum has

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

That's an energy density lower than the surrounding vacuum.  The conducting plates exclude longer wavelengths relative to their spacing.  This is not the same as negative energy in the vacuum. Brent On 11/18/2022 3:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > A stable wormhole requires threading by negative energy density. Since > no such negative energy field is know and it's existence would imperil the > stability of matter, its existence seems highly unlikely.* > In the Casimir Effect

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Thanks for that! You seem to know the subject well. What exactly does it *mean* to say SR can be used for non-inertial frames? Or, do you deny the claim that SR *can* be used for non-inertial frames? AG On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 8:25:41 AM UTC-7 jessem wrote: > The Lorentz

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Spud is the culprit doing this. If he wants to go off-topic, he should start a dedicated thread, not wreak this one. AG On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 5:51:30 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com > wrote: > >> Ah, and

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > Ah, and Minkowski's higher dimension appears to require Willem DeSitter to > step in and re-normalize the view from such an observer. My thinking is, > would this be some sort of tachyonic field in some kind of

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Hmmm. Have you considered that a Malamet-Hogarth Spacetime, (mathematically speaking), would conflate with your blackhole-wormhole conundrum? Specifically: Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes (book stub). Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On 11/17/2022 4:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: LC: If we have two accelerating frames accelerating at the same rate but in opposite directions, do the Laws of Physics transform according to the LT where v in the LT is now the instantaneous relative velocity of the frames at every time t? AG

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Ah, and Minkowski's higher dimension appears to require Willem DeSitter to step in and re-normalize the view from such an observer. My thinking is, would this be some sort of tachyonic field in some kind of Lorentzian Manifold? You may know, but I cannot.  -Original Message- From:

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

My thinking is that recently, an astronomy team in Romania, and a submission to the American Physical Society yesterday, indicated the plausibility of traversable wormholes. Now, for me it seems exciting although I am not expecting anything so groovy as aliens emerging from 80K years ago and

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:41 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM wrote: > > >> *> Setting aside relativity for the nonce, the workability of >> transversable wormholes is getting more, >> better! https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104024 >>

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM wrote: > *> Setting aside relativity for the nonce, the workability of > transversable wormholes is getting more, > better! https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104024 > *

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Jessem: I was wondering if the LT can be used to determine how the laws of physics change between two accelerating frames, accelerating at the same rate but moving in opposite directions. AG On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 7:58:31 AM UTC-7 jessem wrote: > That doesn't address my specific

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

LC: If we have two accelerating frames accelerating at the same rate but in opposite directions, do the Laws of Physics transform according to the LT where v in the LT is now the instantaneous relative velocity of the frames at every time t? AG JC: take notice. These are the TWO frames I was

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

What I outline is the idea of the Rindler wedge, or the spacetime according to an accelerated observer. The Unruh effect is a quantum field theoretic result on how quantum fields on either side of the induced particle horizon have no complete description according to the accelerated observer.

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

See? Here is a report from the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, indicating the production of Hawking Radiation in the lab. This is a step in unifying the quantum with GR. Minor, but significant. 

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Acceleration at the speed of (G)ravity is a bit unconfirmed, though widely, accepted by the physics community to be the same as that of photons through an absolute vacuum. Meanwhile, we can also address through relativity this question: What is the aggregate speed of T = time? At a cosmological

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Coordinate time variables dt = cosh(gs)ds and dx= sinh(gs)ds are such that dt^2 - dx^2 = (cosh^2(gs) - sinh^2(gs))ds^2 = ds^2, and defines a flat space metric for special relativity. These coordinates define an accelerated frame with acceleration g. LC On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Setting aside relativity for the nonce, the workability of transversable wormholes is getting more, better!  https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104024 Which, for some reason makes me ponder, if there is a Singularity, it may not simply be computational, but based on space

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Can Ref Frames be addressed with General Relativity, also? Travel very fast, time slows down. Travel to a supermassive location, time slows down. The thing then is time, which Julian Barbour says it doesn't exist-which I understand. What exists is motion. Even motion at a quantum scale, like

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Accelerated frames can be addressed with special relativity. LC On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > EOM. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On 11/16/2022 8:20 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:50 PM Alan Grayson wrote: /> Please answer the question defining this thread./ The answer is yes, provided that the acceleration is produced by a force, such as you'd get with a rocket. In General Relativity gravity

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:21 AM John Clark wrote: > > > I don't understand the question, if they're both accelerating at the same > rate then they're in the same reference frame. > There is no single canonical way to define an accelerating object's non-inertial "reference frame" in relativity

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:50 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Please answer the question defining this thread.* The answer is yes, provided that the acceleration is produced by a force, such as you'd get with a rocket. In General Relativity gravity is not considered a force, it's just the way things

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

And when I used the word "true", I just meant that no observations exist which contradict the predictions of SR. AG On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:09:25 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > I just mean, if both frames are accelerating at the same rate, will the v > in the LT, be the

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

I just mean, if both frames are accelerating at the same rate, will the v in the LT, be the instantaneous relative velocity? AG On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:05:42 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > Specifically, will the time dilation of a clock in an accelerating frame, > be the same as a

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Specifically, will the time dilation of a clock in an accelerating frame, be the same as a clock as measured for a clock in a the observer's accelerating frame, where v in the LT is the instantaneous velocity of the clock in the observer's frame at every time t in the observer's frame? On

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

By "valid", I mean "true". IOW, is SR limited to non-accelerating frames? If the frames are accelerating, will the LT still hold for relating the laws of physics between those frames? AG On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:58:27 PM UTC-7 jessem wrote: > It depends what you mean by "valid".

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

It depends what you mean by "valid". Certainly all the physical laws of relativity such as time dilation can be expressed in a non-inertial coordinate system, like Rindler coordinates. But the equations expressing these laws will not be the same in non-inertial coordinate systems, for example you

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Wormholes have nothing to do with my question. Please answer the question defining this thread. TY. On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 1:00:50 PM UTC-7 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: > A stable wormhole requires threading by negative energy density. Since no > such negative energy field is know and

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

The article says they're referring to Einstein-Rosen bridges, which are unstable wormholes that don't require negative energy, unlike the stable traversable wormholes (for traversable wormholes, Kip Thorne originally proposed that the required negative energy might be possible in quantum mechanics

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

A stable wormhole requires threading by negative energy density. Since no such negative energy field is know and it's existence would imperil the stability of matter, its existence seems highly unlikely. Brent On 11/15/2022 11:17 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Me: Forget acronyms,

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

Me: Forget acronyms, or even Einstein's gravitic  Reference Frame dragging (His movie reel analogy), Instead ask yourselves are these physicists correct in proposing that some black holes are wormholes? Objects We Thought Were Black Holes May Actually Be Wormholes, Scientists Say (futurism.com)

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

RA. On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:19:02 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:38 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> IHA = ?* >> > > I Hate Acronyms. > > John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis > > 8gfk > > >

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:38 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> IHA = ?* > I Hate Acronyms. John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis 8gfk -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

IHA = ? On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:14:01 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:14 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > *EOM.* > > > *IHA* > John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis > > hqid > > > -- You

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:14 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > *EOM.* *IHA* John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis hqid -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

This is a test. I know the answer. I just want to see who also knows the answer. TY. On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 1:14:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > EOM. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this