Hey, I'm a bioscience post grad currently in law school, and I.P. law is appealing to me. The issue I'm having is when I look around for the types of jobs out there, all of them require years of experience in I.P. prosecution. Also, my school has no I.P. program whatsoever and so far I have been...
Why does one particular 'frame of reference' have fictitious forces (like inertia) whilst another one doesn't.
I understand the basics, but more interested in 'why' space seems to have magically chosen specific frame to be the 'non inertial frame'.
Could space be more absolute than we...
I took this from a forum to help try and explain what I am asking as maybe I haven't articulated it well enough based on the responses:
"So motion in physics is not all relative. There is a set of reference frames, called inertial frames, that the universe somehow picks out as being special...
"It's absolute, so it isn't relational"
I understand, but what is it absolute in relation to?
There seems only three possible explanations:
1) in relation to itself
2) in relation to space overall (some kind of absolute property)
3) in relation to all the other mass in space.
I guess another way I've considered this, is if we step back from the entire universe and imagine it's race car.. why should it be 'uniform' in that it's overall inertia is zero and space seems to be a resting car.. Why shouldn't we all be stuck to the floor, or the ceiling, or being pulled one...
'rotation is absolute'... in relation to what?
With respect, but I don't think it's a philosophical question at all. Inertia is a real force that needs explaining. The feeling of pull when someone moves left or right has to have a cause if the universe is truly relative, as well as the fact...
I now have a general understanding of relativity but it threw up a few issues.
I understand that there are no 'fixed' points of reference in the universe, which of course begs the question as to why inertia exists. The way I imagine it is if I am the only matter in the universe, then why should...
From the beginning I simply meant that you could travel a light year in less than a year.. from your perspective only.
This is true because (as I said) acceleration has no limit FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.
I don't know why this was so controversial, and what I said was just confirmed later...
All very interesting... Technically it would be difficult, but it is not impossible. Its hard for us to speculate on the technical problems from our primitive view in comparison to another 100, or 1000 years of scientific advancement.
I personally feel it is inevitable this event will happen...
Yes I agree...my point is simply this: You can travel a light year in less then a year from your POV. Of course when you get to the place your flying to, a year would have passed as if time slowed down inside your ship.. that's always been my point when I first asked the questions, although now...
sorry to clarify... length contraction allows this to occur, so they are not traveling ftl per se.
I think you will find this is all true, and been verified by others. People need to get the concept that speed is a arbitrary measurement when it comes to the Universe.