Recent content by Sagittarius A-Star

As others mentioned, that's wrong. The following explanation in a local scenario shows, that "gravitational" time-dilation happens also in flat spacetime. Source: Book "Relativity - Special, General and Cosmological", Second Edition, chapter 1.16 "Gravitational frequency shift and light...

Here is a similar thing, Reichenbach's ##\epsilon## https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_conv_sim/index.html#epsilon Here is another explanation: https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath229/kmath229.htm

As others wrote, this trick does not work. The velocity of the "reset" signal (radio or light) from O to clocks A can be split into a component in direction of the axis of the wheel and a component perpendicular to the axis. The velocity of the "reset" signal (radio or light) from O to clocks B...

That's not completely correct. Before Einstein, when the physically relevant coordinate transformation was thought to be the GT, Maxwell's theory was thought to be strictly true in only one inertial frame - that of still ether. Source: Chapter "6.1 Transformation of the Field Vectors" in W...

Yes. A disadvantage of LET is, that it's "absolute time" is not generally equal to what a clock measures.

Yes. Morin calls it "Relativity without c". Source (see chapter 11.10 on page XI-38): https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.harvard.edu/dist/0/550/files/2023/11/cmchap11.pdf via: https://davidmorin.physics.fas.harvard.edu/books/classical-mechanics/

You can do this i.e. by demanding, that a velocity composition in the same direction is commutative plus a few other assumptions, as shown in the following link: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/only-minkowski-or-galilei-from-commutative-velocity-composition.1017275/ Then the experiment...

The principle of equivalence applies. The object is locally at rest with reference to an upward accelerated frame. This situation is equivalent to an object in an accelerated rocket in flat spacetime.

This is wrong. It is a common misconception. You have such "gravitational" time-dilation also between bow and stern of an accelerating rocket in flat spacetime. As others asked: What is the reference you are citing?

No. The relativistic contraction factor is ##\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}##. It is for example ##1## for ##v=0##.

Length contraction: ##a' = a\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}## ##T' = {a \over \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} + {a' \over c-v} + {a \over \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} + {a' \over c+v}## ##T' = {a \over \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} + {a' (c+v)\over c^2-v^2} + {a \over \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} + {a' (c-v)\over c^2-v^2}={4a \over c}\gamma##

Yes, I am now aware. The following screenshot shows a rotation by 90° around the y-axis (the x-axis is perpendicular to the paper-plane). Only the numbers at the y-axis cannot be read from this viewpoint.

In the following example, for E' the graphics shows y'=2 and the the number field "Boosted electric field" y'=3.96...

42

Although this forum is about classical physics, the generalization of the principle of stationary action to quantum physics may also interest the OP: the path integral method of Feynman. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman's_interpretation