A wrong statement regarding SR.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter misogynisticfeminist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a statement regarding the concept of immobility in relation to the speed of light (c) within the framework of special relativity (SR). Participants are examining the validity and implications of this statement, questioning its clarity and correctness.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses doubt about the correctness of the statement regarding immobility relative to the speed of light and seeks clarification.
  • Another participant points out the ambiguity in the phrase "stationary with respect to a speed," suggesting that the statement lacks clarity.
  • A different participant compares the statement to an analogy about wealth, implying that it may be misleading or nonsensical.
  • It is noted that the statement seems to assume that velocities add algebraically, which is incorrect in the context of special relativity, where the SR velocity-addition formula must be applied.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the original statement. There are multiple competing views regarding its clarity and correctness.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential ambiguities in the original statement and the need for precise definitions in the context of special relativity. There is an unresolved question regarding the implications of the velocity-addition formula.

misogynisticfeminist
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
I've had a friend who said this "However, all objects can be considered immovable relative to the speed c, since the speed remains constant relative to all objects and so it seems like all objects remain stationary comparing with this speed."

There's a nagging feeling at the back of my head that this is wrong, but can anyone tell me why? Or is this statement right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This statement is ambiguous. What does it mean for an object to be stationary with respect to a speed ?
 
That is llike sayiing that you have no money because your money is negligible compared to Bill Gates's.
 
The statement also seems to implicitly assume that velocities add algebraically in SR. They don't, one must use the SR velocity-addition formula.
 

Similar threads

High School Why Shouldn't I Be Skeptical About SR Postulate No.1?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Hafele-Keating Exp: Balancing SR Effects in Plane Ref Frame
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Undergrad Bell's spaceship paradox unknown? Interpretation?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Conventionality of the One-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School A scenario to help understand the twin paradox in SR
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
High School Leave the science to Scientists. Just tell me what is SR.
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad Reference systems and apparent counter-explanations on Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about geometrical engineering (placeholder name)
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
High School SR vs GR - Visual Difference between Length Contraction
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K