Recent content by stillwonder

A question should be answerable in at least same terms as it is put in. So if OP has asked a mathematically non rigorous question, the answer should be that much at the minimum. Physics will have the last word, but that also means someone needs to have the first word. Thats where OP comes in.

Thats true. Photon doesn't experience the universe where it is traveling at speed c. That doesn't stop it from experiencing its own universe, whatever that may be.

A photon is born at the speed c and hence is in inertial frame wrt the world. And its determined/defined that frame is moving at c. So by symmetry world moves at c wrt to photon. This doesn't mean you can jump onto that frame. What it might mean is the photon lives in a parallel universe with...

Ok let me address this as directly as I can. The photon moves at speed c according to you. And according to photon you move at speed c. For all practical purposes you are just another photon for the photon. Yes, you have mass so you cannot move at c, but that's in your reference frame. But...

On lighter vein, applying it to universe, instead of people: 0) change is stress. 1) One can attempt to predict universe since it avoids change (see 0 for why) 2) Once one is able to predict, one starts to take advantage of universe, stressing it out. 3) Once universe is sufficiently...

lol ... and I thought I was paranoid! I have no problems per se with any theory that provides results. SR does. I use Newtonian mechanics too. If I had to base my standing on not agreeing on "how the theory got there", then it'll be pretty much every theory. Postulate 1 invokes "all physical...

Having articulated it so well yourself, it amazes me you still missed the point. Science is about repeatability of experiments (act of measuring) in same/similar settings (equipment) with statistically insignificant aberrations in results (measurements). What is being measured still remains...

the point is neither classical physics nor SR (or anyone else) is any privileged position to assert statements about underlying reality (if any). "OMG, time *itself* slows down ... aww mannn" sounds like (to me atleast) there is a reality of something called "time" apart from what clocks...

lol .. let me give another example that's mirror image, unfortunately it involves acceleration also, but as you will agree it shouldn't matter if symmetric. consider two identical rockets S1 and S2, each with two forward pushing thrusters F1, F2 and two rearward pushing thrusters R1, R2...

thats where is the rub ... once the clocks are synced in inertial frames (moving wrt each other), they are symmetric. one considers the other to be ticking slower by equal amounts. their being out of sync is the thing that's "virtual" here. a parallel is, loosely speaking, two identical...

O never left his post. Its the S and S1 that are equidistant from g that make identical travel in opposite directions. and S and S1 reach their posts simultaneously since everything is symmetric in the whole setup.

unlike observers in thought experiments, I have limited time. i understand the detour you want me to take is not different from what i did to the OP's thread (and someone graciously made this its own thread, thanks!) i don't know how i come back here even after saying i have no problems with...

i am missing something here perhaps... isn't having the clocks synced when they are at constant velocity relative to each other and stopping the clocks before any deceleration (or acceleration) not enough to establish inertial frames?

i asked myself , and nope that's not what i am thinking :) once the coordinate systems are in constant velocity with each other, thye are syncing their clocks and declaring themselves "inertial frames" from that point forward. my objection was to the requirement that the observers be "born" at...

"at zero relative velociy in inertial motion with respect to each other" so you propound the importance of zero relative velocity over non-zero relative velocity?