Recent content by PeterDonis

This also applies to looking at the object itself. The OP might want to look up Penrose-Terell rotation.

The vorticity isn't a cause, it's a description. As I understand it, the rotation of the ISS wrt the gyroscope's axis is maintained by periodically firing thrusters.

This is just a consequence of the fact that, in general in quantum experiments, you have to know the entire experimental context in order to make predictions about the results. Here the "experimental context" includes whether or not the BSM application is made on a particular run. So until you...

Strictly speaking, I suppose this is true, but the proper acceleration will be extremely small, because the only reasons it would be there would be (1) the nonzero vorticity (see below), which is extremely small because of the small angular velocity (only one rotation every 90 minutes) and (2)...

I did, yes.

Note, though, that an orbiting satellite is in free fall, so locally it is not the same as the accelerating elevator. So you can't really understand the precession that is usually called "Thomas precession" for an orbiting satellite using your analogy. Note that in flat spacetime, which is the...

Yes, it is, but note that all of these "precessions" are relative to an observer at rest at infinity. If all you have is local observations of the gyroscope, you can't detect any of them. There are in principle three of them: Thomas precession, de Sitter (geodetic) precession, and (if the...

He means that it rotates 360 degrees relative to the gyroscope's axis, which is Fermi-Walker transported along the ISS's worldline.

Actually, I realized there's another one as well: Pascal (thanks to Borland, from Turbo Pascal to Delphi).

LOL. :smile: But yes, it's true, "easy to get started coding" can go either way. Wow, you've subjected yourself to even more than I have. :biggrin: Of the ones you list, I haven't learned C# (too strong an allergic reaction to anything that involves Windows), Perl (executable line noise isn't...

You're welcome!

Yes, all this is true and well known. Is there a question you have about this topic that hasn't been addressed yet?

Since the OP question is based on a misconception, which has been corrected, this thread is closed.

It's a known conjecture, though speculative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%3D_EPR The OP is simply mistaken about what is actually involved with traversable wormholes.

Yes, that's true, although the way it isn't is somewhat counterintuitive. Spacelike separated measurements can still be correlated, sufficiently to violate the Bell inequalities--they just have to commute, i.e., the results can't depend on the order in which they're made. Some people seem to be...